There is a possibility of Starcraft II going free to play when they can find a way to monetize it.
While this is a good move for e-sport (lowering the barrier to entry for new players), it must also achieve a balance in order to not ruin the game/ create a game plagued with micro transaction.
What do you think might be a possibility to monetize the game? I have considered a few things but none seems to work. For example, if they go Dota2 way, which is selling skins for units, it might be super confusion for the players. For example, when Roach get the burrow movement upgrade, the aesthetic changes. In this case, an alternate skin can give some "indirect" advantage to the one using it.
I just hope that if it were to go free to play, they can find a good balance
I really dont like it personally. It might be good for esports and blizzard but I still dont like it. I have a big fear that it will just be "pay to win".
Bought many copies of bw, and have my single copy of WoL, plan on buying the expos right off the bat, all worth the money. Please dont go this route. I dont even want to support Blizzard and I dont like this idea.
skins for units, some custom games might be sellable, portraits, also establishing cash tourney system where blizzard keeps $1 per person and pays out to top 2 or 4 etc. so many ways to have it free to play if they put the work in
Quite a few video game genres have really, really good f2p profit. Almost anyone in those genres should be seeking to go f2p. Unfortunately, competitive RTS is not one of those genres. Almost no skins, no items and no miscellaneous crap like portraits that will either be desireable or something that people won't crucify you for monetizing. The very few things they could sell would most likely have low desireability and thus low price, meaning that they shouldn't be able to make SC2 really that profitable at all as f2p. So, basically, it is obvious that they would want to go f2p if they could, because it is insanely profitable, but they really can't go f2p because of the restraints of the genre.
-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)
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.
Buyable Playerportraits may be a first idea, considering the race for them during the early days of SC2 and when the Starcraft-Master-Portrait was introduced.
On September 23 2012 12:45 Niriw wrote: -Buy unlimited access to arcade an unlimited ladder games (maybe limited to 3-5 games a day of both arcade and ladder) -All options and customizations unlocked (Options menu: graphics, hotkeys, sound, etc)
And I could go on forever
These are bad ideas.
1) No (successful) F2P game limits playtime by charging, the whole point is that it gets you to play a lot for free so that you buy other shit.
2) ...what? Nobody's gonna pay to up their graphics settings or turn off in-game music, that's just gonna piss people off.
They can sell skins, that's pretty much it. If you charge people to use, say, broodlords, the game just sucks for anyone who doesn't pay, and you also run into the issue of "has my opponent bought xx?"
that said I would absolutely buy skins for all my units that'd be kickass
Ultimatly it will be bad for esports rather then good.
TF2.... perfect example.
Wasn't TF2 kind of dead as an ESPORT even before it went F2P?
Also aesthetic things, it won't be bad because the units will still have their own distinctive silhouettes.
Also things such as being able to have an image on your side of the map, in your main base, or like the bases on "your side" of the map, any image you want. Think of how fun it would be to show off your interests?
(and stuff like the icons on your buildings, maybe custom profile pictures, etc.)
and ofc these wouldn't have to be very expensive at all, just a few bucks
And maybe limitations like, no cross region play unless you pay a few bucks
And you could have the option of the above, and/or just buying the entire game with campaign and all the features
or something, i think it can work out
Perhaps after a few more years, they can do this? (Or start allowing free WoL soon in a couple years, but people will be playing HotS... but maybe newbies wouldn't mind since it's just to get them into what the game is like)
Buy campaign missions/maps, obviously. Multiplayer isn't everything, in fact, most people don't even care about it except for the occasional 4v4 battles they go into.
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
Why make the game F2P if they are just going to charge you to actually play the game? That would not work in the slightest.
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.
You have the same thoughts as I, I have been thinking that they should do that ever since I bought SC2, I would hope when they make paid name changes it isn't too much if they don't make the game free to play though.
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.
On September 23 2012 12:45 Niriw wrote: -Buy unlimited access to arcade an unlimited ladder games (maybe limited to 3-5 games a day of both arcade and ladder) -All options and customizations unlocked (Options menu: graphics, hotkeys, sound, etc)
And I could go on forever
These are bad ideas.
1) No (successful) F2P game limits playtime by charging, the whole point is that it gets you to play a lot for free so that you buy other shit.
2) ...what? Nobody's gonna pay to up their graphics settings or turn off in-game music, that's just gonna piss people off.
They can sell skins, that's pretty much it. If you charge people to use, say, broodlords, the game just sucks for anyone who doesn't pay, and you also run into the issue of "has my opponent bought xx?"
that said I would absolutely buy skins for all my units that'd be kickass
Ok, maybe not limiting the amount of games, but prioritizing the ones who pay over the ones who don't for it's waiting time.
Skins is a horrible idea, it would be confusing for both, players, and spectators.
And option costumization IS a good idea, people who want to play the conformtably would pay to set the graphics/hotkeys/sound/etc as they want, I'm not saying the game wouldn't allow you to do it, but it would be limited
It's not meant for people not to play it, just for the ones who want to enjoy it fully or go pro
Another ideas: -No single player for f2p -No replay function -Limited friend list -Limited Chat Channel access -Limited security (just limited to e-mail and password, no security question, no battle.net key-chain identifier) -Multiplayer only limited to 1v1 and FFA
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.
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.
I would assume that everyone who already bought the game would get the "VIP" status
I hope this happens. Trust me Sc2 will overcome LoL if this happens. For example, A lot of people here in my country wants to play sc2 but they dont want to pay. And i believe this applies to everyone. So I hope this happens so that there will be more players;
On September 23 2012 13:08 Probe1 wrote: Dude no. You want a real world example of your ideas in action? Age of Empires Online.
Age of Empires II was my first RTS as well as one of my favorite RTS. I can literally play for hours non-stop back then. Then comes Age of Empires III. It was way easier (no resource drop off point... really??) and way less fun, so I stopped.
Age of Empires Online was a disaster. That horrible game is the example of pay to play. Your unit can literally be stronger than your opponent's if you buy the premium civilization pack. Needless to say, I was done with that game after two hours.
On September 23 2012 13:08 Probe1 wrote: Dude no. You want a real world example of your ideas in action? Age of Empires Online.
Age of Empires II was my first RTS as well as one of my favorite RTS. I can literally play for hours non-stop back then. Then comes Age of Empires III. It was way easier (no resource drop off point... really??) and way less fun, so I stopped.
Age of Empires Online was a disaster. That horrible game is the example of pay to play. Your unit can literally be stronger than your opponent's if you buy the previous civilization pack. Needless to say, I was done with that game after two hours.
They changed a lot of that around. Unfortunately, their champion mode (read "fair PvP" mode) is still under the pay wall.
-Matchup/Map stats. -get to see your real MMR and promotion thresholds. -Tournament map pool in ladder. -unit customization. -Ladder priority. -access to Arcade/UMS. -access to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, FFA. -Obligatory WoW pet. -Sign up for a year and get one season pass of GSL/OSL. -If you are an existing WoW subscriber, you get Starcraft 2 Premium for free or at a discount.
Existing retail customers get discounted premium at $9.99/year.
**Legacy players keep everything they already have. God... people.
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.
On September 23 2012 12:45 Niriw wrote: -Buy unlimited access to arcade an unlimited ladder games (maybe limited to 3-5 games a day of both arcade and ladder) -All options and customizations unlocked (Options menu: graphics, hotkeys, sound, etc)
And I could go on forever
These are bad ideas.
1) No (successful) F2P game limits playtime by charging, the whole point is that it gets you to play a lot for free so that you buy other shit.
2) ...what? Nobody's gonna pay to up their graphics settings or turn off in-game music, that's just gonna piss people off.
They can sell skins, that's pretty much it. If you charge people to use, say, broodlords, the game just sucks for anyone who doesn't pay, and you also run into the issue of "has my opponent bought xx?"
that said I would absolutely buy skins for all my units that'd be kickass
Ok, maybe not limiting the amount of games, but prioritizing the ones who pay over the ones who don't for it's waiting time.
Skins is a horrible idea, it would be confusing for both, players, and spectators.
And option costumization IS a good idea, people who want to play the conformtably would pay to set the graphics/hotkeys/sound/etc as they want, I'm not saying the game wouldn't allow you to do it, but it would be limited
It's not meant for people not to play it, just for the ones who want to enjoy it fully or go pro
Another ideas: -No single player for f2p -No replay function -Limited friend list -Limited Chat Channel access -Limited security (just limited to e-mail and password, no security question, no battle.net key-chain identifier) -Multiplayer only limited to 1v1 and FFA
If anything like this happens they will lose a lot of their current playerbase, which is NOT the point of making games F2P.
I mean what could you really pay for that won't ruin the game?
-Avatar -Flags/custom decals -Different Colors for your units in match making -Map Packs - Custom colored creep
What they should do is run the 2 side by side. Run the paid version of the game alongside a f2p version. But the f2p version only allows you to play one map on repeat for a day. On the f2p model you will also be in a league with other f2p players, where you do not acrue bonus pool, and the highest league you can get to is diamond.
On September 23 2012 13:18 OptimusYale wrote: Free to Play model just wouldn't work for an RTS
I mean what could you really pay for that won't ruin the game?
-Avatar -Flags/custom decals -Different Colors for your units in match making -Map Packs - Custom colored creep
What they should do is run the 2 side by side. Run the paid version of the game alongside a f2p version. But the f2p version only allows you to play one map on repeat for a day. On the f2p model you will also be in a league with other f2p players, where you do not acrue bonus pool, and the highest league you can get to is diamond.
Single player campaign. The fact that there's only 2 people (including me) who mentioned it saddens me.
Have red and blue as the ONLY colors. For ladder and for custom play. Then you can buy your favorite colors to play with... (I would easily pay for a Gray color, 10 bucks or so... for example)... also the same for some special portraits, and symbols on the buildings.
For clans and things the portraits would be awesome. Maybe even a way to design your own.
What you could do is have basic multiplayer as we have it now free to play, but then you can buy a premium account that has:
Campaign Clans Better stat-tracking Icons and skins for units Access to Public Tests and Betas In-game tournaments
You could even restrict ranked matchmaking to paying players, depending if you need more incentives to pay.
As for a more microtransaction-oriented model, you could have the obvious Avatars/Icons/unit skins/etc, but pay-to-enter tournaments and leagues might be a good way to do it.
On September 23 2012 13:18 OptimusYale wrote: Free to Play model just wouldn't work for an RTS
I mean what could you really pay for that won't ruin the game?
-Avatar -Flags/custom decals -Different Colors for your units in match making -Map Packs - Custom colored creep
What they should do is run the 2 side by side. Run the paid version of the game alongside a f2p version. But the f2p version only allows you to play one map on repeat for a day. On the f2p model you will also be in a league with other f2p players, where you do not acrue bonus pool, and the highest league you can get to is diamond.
Single player campaign. The fact that there's only 2 people (including me) who mentioned it saddens me.
i dont think there are many people looking forward to hots campaign.
On September 23 2012 13:14 Fyodor wrote: Starcraft 2: Premium
$9.99/month gets you:
-Matchup/Map stats. -get to see your real MMR and promotion thresholds. -Tournament map pool in ladder. -unit customization. -Ladder priority. -access to Arcade/UMS. -access to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, FFA. -Obligatory WoW pet. -Sign up for a year and get one season pass of GSL/OSL. -If you are an existing WoW subscriber, you get Starcraft 2 Premium for free or at a discount.
Existing retail customers get discounted premium at $9.99/year.
They'd lose like 80% of their casual playerbase, lol.
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.
On September 23 2012 12:45 Niriw wrote: -Buy unlimited access to arcade an unlimited ladder games (maybe limited to 3-5 games a day of both arcade and ladder) -All options and customizations unlocked (Options menu: graphics, hotkeys, sound, etc)
And I could go on forever
These are bad ideas.
1) No (successful) F2P game limits playtime by charging, the whole point is that it gets you to play a lot for free so that you buy other shit.
2) ...what? Nobody's gonna pay to up their graphics settings or turn off in-game music, that's just gonna piss people off.
They can sell skins, that's pretty much it. If you charge people to use, say, broodlords, the game just sucks for anyone who doesn't pay, and you also run into the issue of "has my opponent bought xx?"
that said I would absolutely buy skins for all my units that'd be kickass
Ok, maybe not limiting the amount of games, but prioritizing the ones who pay over the ones who don't for it's waiting time.
Skins is a horrible idea, it would be confusing for both, players, and spectators.
And option costumization IS a good idea, people who want to play the conformtably would pay to set the graphics/hotkeys/sound/etc as they want, I'm not saying the game wouldn't allow you to do it, but it would be limited
It's not meant for people not to play it, just for the ones who want to enjoy it fully or go pro
Another ideas: -No single player for f2p -No replay function -Limited friend list -Limited Chat Channel access -Limited security (just limited to e-mail and password, no security question, no battle.net key-chain identifier) -Multiplayer only limited to 1v1 and FFA
It's a terrible idea to make people pay to change the graphics settings to fit their needs. No one is going to play a game they can barely run, and less will pay to just have the ability to change it to what suits them most. The limited security is also a tons of BS. So because you pay for the game you get more defense for your account? That's like mafia style shake down right there.
Possible to even make deals with pros for coaching and a way to purchase into streams like the MLG PPV and subbing to people like WhiteRa and MaximusBlack through the actual SC2 interface... and somehow getting some of the revenue. Also making streams available through the interface, pro replays, and brackets I think would be FANTASTIC.
I'm not sure why.. but I dislike the f2p model. I used to play Team Fortress 2 but as soon as it became free... I just didn't play it anymore for some reason.
On September 23 2012 12:39 CwnAnnwn wrote: I really dont like it personally. It might be good for esports and blizzard but I still dont like it. I have a big fear that it will just be "pay to win".
Blizzard would never do that, especially to a game they made to be a sport. Also it just doesnt happen LoL for example another competitive rts doesnt have pay to win and their f2p
On September 23 2012 13:14 Fyodor wrote: Starcraft 2: Premium
$9.99/month gets you:
-Matchup/Map stats. -get to see your real MMR and promotion thresholds. -Tournament map pool in ladder. -unit customization. -Ladder priority. -access to Arcade/UMS. -access to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, FFA. -Obligatory WoW pet. -Sign up for a year and get one season pass of GSL/OSL. -If you are an existing WoW subscriber, you get Starcraft 2 Premium for free or at a discount.
Existing retail customers get discounted premium at $9.99/year.
Why would we have to pay for a game we already bought? This isn't WoW, we were given a one time deal payment of 60$. Why would they charge us 10$ a month for everything we get now?
On September 23 2012 13:18 OptimusYale wrote: Free to Play model just wouldn't work for an RTS
I mean what could you really pay for that won't ruin the game?
-Avatar -Flags/custom decals -Different Colors for your units in match making -Map Packs - Custom colored creep
What they should do is run the 2 side by side. Run the paid version of the game alongside a f2p version. But the f2p version only allows you to play one map on repeat for a day. On the f2p model you will also be in a league with other f2p players, where you do not acrue bonus pool, and the highest league you can get to is diamond.
Single player campaign. The fact that there's only 2 people (including me) who mentioned it saddens me.
i dont think there are many people looking forward to hots campaign.
Maybe not people on this website, but most people who bought Wings of Liberty aren't on this website. Just about everyone I know who bought the game plays only the campaign and 4v4's.
On September 23 2012 13:14 Fyodor wrote: Starcraft 2: Premium
$9.99/month gets you:
-Matchup/Map stats. -get to see your real MMR and promotion thresholds. -Tournament map pool in ladder. -unit customization. -Ladder priority. -access to Arcade/UMS. -access to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, FFA. -Obligatory WoW pet. -Sign up for a year and get one season pass of GSL/OSL. -If you are an existing WoW subscriber, you get Starcraft 2 Premium for free or at a discount.
Existing retail customers get discounted premium at $9.99/year.
-Tournament map pool in ladder. So what you are going to have two different ladders or just extra maps for some people, makes no sense wouldn't work. -Ladder priority. Silly, wait time isn't long in SC2. -access to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, FFA. This would take away 2v2 ect from people who bought the game and have been playing it for years no way this can happen.
Basically micro transactions are the only way to make it F2P you cant have a premium subscription system in a game that is already free to play once you have bought it, and honestly I don't see how they can make enough money on micro transactions without ruining the balance of the game. Custom skins just dont seem like enough but maybe it could work.
It's really simple for me. As long as nothing impacts gameplay, and it's entirely cosmetic, I don't mind. If it impacts gameplay, I'm 100% against it.
It'd be nice to have a single sum equal to or slightly greater than the cost of a typical game nowadays that you can pay to get everything, but I could live without that.
I'd also rather not have a subscription based method, but again if it's an option I don't care too much.
I'm not afraid of blizzard ruining the game with this. They won't be stupid enough to destroy the competitive aspect of a game with such a strong and involved competitive scene. SC2 is the poster child of eSports right now. They won't ruin it with pay2win.
About the worst thing that I can see them doing is adding unit skin packs making things confusing. Tournaments can just turn those off.
I think a few years after the last xpack, it might be a good way to continue making money from the franchise. In that respect, keeping blizzard's support for the game in later years can only be a good thing for the community. Right now, though, with two xpacks to go, I'm not sure it's such a good idea.
StarCraft is not going to work as a F2P. The game has an actual story line to follow. The mutliplayer sure might be, but the whole game no. They have to hire the voice actors the single player experience IMO is worth paying for even if its not the highlight of the game.
On September 23 2012 13:14 Fyodor wrote: Starcraft 2: Premium
$9.99/month gets you:
-Matchup/Map stats. -get to see your real MMR and promotion thresholds. -Tournament map pool in ladder. -unit customization. -Ladder priority. -access to Arcade/UMS. -access to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, FFA. -Obligatory WoW pet. -Sign up for a year and get one season pass of GSL/OSL. -If you are an existing WoW subscriber, you get Starcraft 2 Premium for free or at a discount.
Existing retail customers get discounted premium at $9.99/year.
-Tournament map pool in ladder. So what you are going to have two different ladders or just extra maps for some people, makes no sense wouldn't work. -Ladder priority. Silly, wait time isn't long in SC2. -access to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, FFA. This would take away 2v2 ect from people who bought the game and have been playing it for years no way this can happen.
Basically micro transactions are the only way to make it F2P you cant have a premium subscription system in a game that is already free to play once you have bought it, and honestly I don't see how they can make enough money on micro transactions without ruining the balance of the game. Custom skins just dont seem like enough but maybe it could work.
Why did you silly guys assume that they take away things from retail players... Explain to me how they could get that passed by the FTC, EU, etc...
The point is that there is Legacy players that keep what they already have and can buy into premium to get the other goodies introduced. Feel dumber having to spell it out.
On September 23 2012 12:41 Boiler Bandsman wrote: 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.
Pretty sure the AOE online thingy was free to play... but pay to win.
On September 23 2012 12:41 Boiler Bandsman wrote: 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.
Pretty sure the AOE online thingy was free to play... but pay to win.
Shattered Galaxy, squad MMO RTS, had a free account that had limitations (less xp, less credits, cap of level).
If you watched the eSports congress they asked DB if they thought that being free to play was necessary to make a successful eSport; he responded he doesn't believe it works for every genre, but they have put thought into how they would monetize the game if they went that route. They haven't really come up with a correct solution as they don't want the person who spent more money to have more units, etc.
I would make it like a free downloadable version that only allows you to play unranked ladder and custom games.
For Arcade, ranked ladder and tournaments (something I would like to see in SC II the way it was in Warcraft 3) you would need to buy the full version, this way anyone who wants to try it out will be able to, but if you want to get competetive you have to invest money.
I really don't want my Starcraft units to wear hats. . . .
Another possibility would be to constantly add on profile pictures that can be bought, as well as profile backgrounds, MAYBE limit the map pool to something 4 and make extra maps purchasable.
F2P in an RTS will be something difficult to establish since money HAS to be made and I do not want tons and tons of ads in the game..
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.
paid name changes are pointless if you can just create a new free account.
unless you do not want your profile to reset. I rather stay ranked the way I am and keep my profile pictures if it means paying 2 bucks instead for the name change..
I think it could work? Pay for: 1) Name changes 2) Additional avatars 3) Additional decals 4) Different unit models 5) *insert any crap that blizzard could make money off of that doesnt screw with the balance of the game* 6) Name changes
Skins for our units client side. You can't change your opponents units for your advantage and you just see your own units as you want them. Marauders looking like wardogs or whatever? Go for it.
Maybe test on the PTR if there's would be a different in having a skin for upgraded vs non-upgraded, client side still. Aka slow marauders now wardogs and blink stalkers now dark stalkers. Skins from the campaign can be Incorporated into multiplayer.
I don't like f2p for a game like sc2 really, for a game like sc2, I'd rather just pay for the game up front, and get everything. No dicking about with skins, or stats, etc. If they added something like paid name changes then fair enough but stuff that effects actual gameplay they should leave alone.
In the end, if it gains popularity and longevity through free to play that's better for them than if the game, which is already pretty inaccessable in terms of skill, has an extra $60+ gulf between it and potential new play.
I really like the online tourney option someone mentioned. Buy in, blizzard gets a cut, the rest goes to a prize pool. Didn't wc3 have blizzard operated online tournaments? It'd be the love child of that and d3's auction house. Name changes, clan support, portraits, some higher end arcade stuff, skins with a toggleable "view" for the opponent- that's all great stuff. I think blizzard should try to get it to work. As a side note, I think lol owes a good deal of it's popularity to the fact that it's free to play. If sc2 was free to play, I guarantee a LOT more people would play it.
But seriously, blizzard would never comodify anything that would give an edge in the actual game; they're not that stupid. We nerds, on the otherhand, tend to be stupid enough to pay for superficial bullshit. At the very least, portraits and unit skins would sell like hotcakes. Dragoon skin for my stalkers? Shut the fuck up and take my money.
why do people keep pushing this topic for? let me break it down for you.....BLIZZARD IS NOT RELEASING FREE TO PLAY UNTIL BOTH EXPANSIONS HAVE BEEN RELEASED, thanks for asking and thanks for wondering
Clan creation should be implemented. You could charge for so much, clan tags, clan emblem (uploadable through battle.net) the ingame decals with a logo etc. Not to mention people would pay for just regular shit like imagine being able to purchase a ladder colour e.g. normally always red / blue but if you pay lets say 10 euros you can play as pink(or any other color) on ladder. Blizzard can host team leagues with entree fee's with an ingame clan system.
They can charge for name change(will work on f2p because not everyone feels like going back up to masters and readding all their friends etc. not to mention confirmation through phone can prevent people from making mass accounts).
You know how there's a colectors edition thor there can be those kind of skins for other units as long as it's not disruptive in gameplay. I like the idea of being able to purchase maybe even ui skins or sound packs or things like stronger team colour mod. People love to customize their stuff and be unique from other people and most of us are willing to lay down a few euro's for it.
I know F2P will bring alot of garbage to the game, right now people that planned on getting sc2 got it but no one randomly got it. Wich means compared to other games our community is pretty mature considering most players originate from other games and have grown over the bm. But for a larger community, bigger prizes and more players I think it all might be worth it in the end.
For anyone concerned about if it makes the game look unprofessional you can always develop a system where skins and such can be dissabled upon personal preference or maybe create a tourney mod where everythign turns vanilla.
There's enough ways to make money out of a f2p game even an RTS the only thing they need to do is invest in a good system and wantable stuff. Ofcourse they should charge for the campaign since I believe there's a large portion of the community that will pay just for the campaign. And maybe the f2p version doesn't have 2v2 or 3v3 available? IDK maybe you have to purchase being able to play teamgames.
You could let people pay a small fee like 2-5 euro's to reset their win/lose stats (if not refreshed every season) because let's face it most people love a good looking win/lose ratio. You could pay for your name in a different colour e.g. in your friendlist peopel can customize their colour and in chats too or maybe this will end up being bundled with a ladder colour.
there's enough to do for money that I would personally end up paying for blizzard just has to want it / execute it well.
On September 23 2012 14:06 salehonasi wrote: How has nobody mentioned the most obvious one of all?
Sell a LAN enabled version.
You sir just won the thread-win award :D
Another idea could be Reset Stats - I could see people wanting to erase their old stats and start fresh. Doesn't affect experienced players since people with master league have no reason to reset their stats.
I wouldn't mind this terribly as long as we still had the option to purchase everything up front (sp/mp and all related goodies) like the current model.
My biggest concern would be the affect on the player-base/community. I know the SC2 community isn't a shining example of maturity, but it's much, much better than all the F2P games I've played.
theres alot of awesome ideas here but Blizzards only focus is HOTS right now , and getting that balanced, this F2P topic is something you will want to bring up down the line, but right now its very clear its not something there doing anytime soon .
On September 23 2012 14:16 HardlyNever wrote: I wouldn't mind this terribly as long as we still had the option to purchase everything up front (sp/mp and all related goodies) like the current model.
My biggest concern would be the affect on the player-base/community. I know the SC2 community isn't a shining example of maturity, but it's much, much better than all the F2P games I've played.
F2P = omg horrible community in my experience.
I agree, it would maim an already fragile community
On September 23 2012 12:39 CwnAnnwn wrote: I really dont like it personally. It might be good for esports and blizzard but I still dont like it. I have a big fear that it will just be "pay to win".
that was the first thing dustin browder said it wouldn't be at the esports conference..
I already hate this idea with the small fact that. Blizz has not been able to police up hacks. Hey if you can fix this issue F2P is amazing, But knowing that anyone could just create a new account and a temp ban or perm ban means nothing.
Some things that I would pay for - and I consider myself a huge fan of Starcraft. I think the key thing that will work is the price - an easy number - $5
- Name Change - Tournament System using real money (using Blizzards finely tuned Matchmaking system, and where Blizzard gets a cut) - Different "Profiles" You can pay for an additional 3 profiles, one for Zerg, Terran, Protoss, and Random - each separately ranked, I would pay $5 Dollars for each one. - Portraits (I wouldn't buy a ton of these, maybe 1 or 2) - Visual changes like custom color, custom decals, and something I dub - "Fighting words" a message that is displayed at your loading screen. Must be appropriate of course. - And some kind of universal in-game stream viewer/launcher.browser
How this would work confuses me, but I think it would be something new and would help out the teams/streaming sites, and popularization of watching streams.
A streaming section with Pro teams, Clans, events, sorted by current views, total views, league, race, etc. You could follow certain streamers and get in game alerts. Blizzard could partner up with twitch, as they are already starting to get aligned. It could be $5/a month, with 25% of it going to Blizz, twitch, the player, and infrastructure of Blizz/twitch. A way for players, any player, any rank, to potentially make money from their games or personality. Blizzard could also offer a promoting section on the front page of the streaming section. With the revenue from that being in blizzards favor, as well as twitch's for ad revenue.
I think it would be cool - there are a lot of streamers out there that are cool people, that are entertaining, but might not be at that pro level.
I think they're best off leveraging the fan bases of their best players. Let the pros broadcast their matches somehow through a Blizzard UI, charging a nominal fee like 5 cents a game for a low-priority (ie doesn't break the game if it lags off) observer slot. Or host a replay warehouse, again so interested parties can pay a little bit to see their favorite player's best matches. The pros and popular players earn some extra money, and Blizzard takes a cut. LoL already has obs capabilities for the masses.
They could even use a currency system to encourage ladder play. Buy points to watch favorite players, get their broadcasts, their starred matches, etc. Earn a nominal amount of points for things like "first game of the day", "all bonus pool spent" That way, people can get involved in the point system without putting in real money, but if they find it is worth their time, they may drop some cash in their bnet account.
Cheating is already out of control, this would not work well at all. If there was a way around that issue, then maybe it could work but only if there was nothing you could buy that changed gameplay in any way shape or form (so I guess cosmetic stuff only).
No thanks. I'd rather spend 50 dollars up front than be nickel and dimed to death 1 dollar at a time... This is some shit idea that WoW and other games like that can keep for themselves...
I don't think it would affect the community too much. It already is pretty bad ( or at least that "vocal minority" that everybody keeps referring to ) and the only reason you could consider the LoL or TF2 communities worse is because you have to deal with them in game since those two are exclusively team games and people can ruin your experience very easily in that context. You have team games in sc2 too but: 1. those are not the main focus as they are 99% absent from the esport part of the game and 1v1 is unaffected by how bad of a person the other guy is; 2. Playing with a random team mate is already pretty bad.
Map hacking and other types of cheating could be the only real problem I can see. Since you didn't pay for the game you are a lot less "scared" of getting banned. You just make a new account and hack away...
I would like this to happen after the sales of the game and its expansion are at a decline. Then it seems that it would be a good idea to go with this.
if you look at dota and hon, they both only do cosmetic only stuff in their payshop. Custom chat colours, skins, announcers, taunts, profile pics etc. Stat resets is another thing that SC2 is missing and could make a lot from.
I dont really like this idea as it gives more acessbility to young hackers ruining everyones fun on the ladder (i know this happens quite a lot on TF2 when it went F2P). Reporting people on bnet doesn't have a very fast reaction atm and I think they need to put the foot down on anti-cheating more so than they have in the past in order for this to be a success. This seems like a strong business model, but they'll need to integrate more things into the game if they want the game to be rising to the top in terms of esports. Things like clan/team support, shared replay viewing/transfer and disconnection solutions would really be some amazing integrations for HOTS. Personally, i'd prefer they lower the initial price tag, and then give micro-transactions for different skins/options but i'm not too sure how that would work in a business model.
In before you spent 90€ in buying both WoL, and HotS, then blizzard makes the game F2P, but you need to pay more money after that for every upcoming content patch as DLC.
They definitely should go F2P. Even if they can't make crazy bucks off the game, it's a choice between going F2P and making SOME money, as opposed to keeping it a paid product and making zero money. Practically nobody is going to buy WoL once the expo is out. There's no reason for Blizz to let WoL sit there unused when they could use it as a chance to make a bit of cash and use it as marketing for HotS.
In all fairness the only thing to monetize is customization. Ladder colors, SC2 is a very diverse game, and has the option for lots of customization in the Unit editor. EX: you pick 5 colors you want to ladder with, If your opponent has the same color picked you get your second color choice.
Custom Symbols/Clan tags EX: As many know when you get x wins you get a decal, This would probably be the most bought feature. You would be able to upload your own clan tag/ custom decal.
custom portraits you can only get in EX: PCBANGS like korean flag, or other portraits. Lets take Xbox 360, you can use custom portraits for your avatar.
Maybe your patriotic, or you have a special national flag you want to show off. Since HOTS will introduce unlocked ladders which will essentially let you play from anywhere it would only make sense that, you show pride for your country. Having a little flag on the side of a zealot or the side of an SCV would be cool
Another thing is customized units. Lets say you are a zerg or protoss. I think it would be fair to have the option of maybe paying for a custom animation. EX; you edit the baneling burst animation instead of being green, the goo would represent the color you are. Same with Protoss or Terran, ex 2: colossus would be able to have a colored lazer that would represent the color. Or for Terran it would be like Hellions would Shoot the color you represent in a game. Or the lets say the little animation that follows a maruaders grenade would be colored the same color you represent. Maybe something like the Collectors edition thor, you would be able to add some special thing so people would be able to tell of customization.
Name changes, no explanation here.
OF course there are tons of other things, but these are the few that actuall came to mind rather quickly
Does nobody else know how easy this is? If you have an account, you get a reduced price on another account.
I honestly believe that pay-to-smurf is a legitimate monetization strategy. Maybe everyone will make a smurf and Blizzard with make 1/6 of their profits all over again. Or just maybe, everybody and their brother will buy an account at a reduced rate, and the price of the game won't be the prohibitive $60 that's been killing their sales since day one.
All they need to do is make an ingame score with ingame currency like Riot's, but sell different kings. Not skins. Accounts. Sell whatever people will buy, just start trying things until something works. Sell another campaign. For fuck's sake sell Heart of the Swarm beta keys early. And don't make it your company's policy to complain that you don't know how to do something when you've never tried. This is the prohibitive thinking that stops LoL from having a map pool. Sell cheaper HD tickets to popular tournaments.
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.
And yeah, name changes would be pretty a pretty alright idea too.
The added problem is that SC2 would be converting from one model to the other, so Blizzard risks frustrating its already loyal customer base that bought the original product. (Similar to TF2)
I just don't see how they could do F2P in a way that would make any sense for them. Unit skins are out and animations are out for gameplay reasons, portraits are not really going to be a profitable cash cow.
Charging for profile features or anything to do with the arcane would frustrate the people like me who feel we should be entitled to those things because we bought the original product, or because they'd be selling user made content.
I suppose they could do something like Map Packs or something similar and disable the arcade for players playing on the free version, but all of those solutions don't sound profitable the way League of Legends skins do.
On September 23 2012 15:53 ScienceGroen wrote: They definitely should go F2P. Even if they can't make crazy bucks off the game, it's a choice between going F2P and making SOME money, as opposed to keeping it a paid product and making zero money. Practically nobody is going to buy WoL once the expo is out. There's no reason for Blizz to let WoL sit there unused when they could use it as a chance to make a bit of cash and use it as marketing for HotS.
I might be wrong but I thought you needed WoL to play HotS since it's an expansion as opposed to a stand alone game?
Pay for: - Playing aggainst people higher than a certain league; - Being placed on a league, or being able to be promoted higher than a certain league; - Access to single player; - Name changes; - Clan tags; - Being able to play on all of the maps available for ladder; - etc.
Considering f2p being an option doesn't mean anything. Blizzard is considering many other options that they will never make happen, i think.
I really like the idea of making something more available to more people, BUT... ...it also makes this game available to a lot of idiots. ...can you imagine the maphacker/cheater thread being 1000s of pages instead of 146?
From my experience many f2p communities are just terrible. The last recent one is LoL that i started playing sometimes a few months ago. I really like the game but it's much less fun with that many trolls and people bm'ing the shit out of each other. There are rules and stuff but if someone gets banned he can immediately create another account and keep going.
Although i don't participate that much in the SC2 community i love it and don't want it to become a place like that.
Well, i bet many people bought games for a similar amount of money as SC2 that they maybe played 6-8 hours and then never again. You can play SC2 for years... In my opinion it's more than worth it's money and it shouldn't be changed.
The most important thing about the f2p thing is the money, right? But really... if someone is able to afford a computer that can run SC2, this person should also be able to afford the game that he or she really wants to play.
So i think that the "more available to more people" thing is not really a strong argument. Good for eSports? It would change the amount of players, yes, but wouldn't change that much in the quality of the players, i think. On ladder yes, but not in competetive play. Maybe a few new names in tournaments, that's it. I really don't know if that's something that is "good for eSports". You always have to have a look at both sides of a medal and then think if you want to take the risk or not. Why would a company take a huge risk with a product they sold millions of times?
When i went to school there was a teacher who said something like this: "If there are 100s of flies flying around a piece of poo. The piece of poo can't be bad, right?". I hope you understand what i want to say.
What about adding a LAN mode to the game and make only this f2p? If people want single-/or multiplayer they then have to buy the full game anyways.
I read an awesome idea about a F2P online, and a paid for single player/arcade experience.
It might not be micro transactions, but if people want to play arcade games or single player they buy the expansion pack and then everything is unlocked for full use. Would invite more people to play the online who want to try it, and the same people who want to buy the single player story will do so.
Also: you can buy Dance animations. I wanna have a gangnam zealot to manner them peeps on ladder. GOGO
Once they milk everybody for both expansions maybe. But only good business, good idea really. More games should go free-to-play after their prime is over. Its a great way to extend the life of your game
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
The day I have to pay for ladder access is the day I quit starcraft. Fuck that to hell.
On September 23 2012 16:13 Apolo wrote: No ways to monetize it?
Pay for: - Playing aggainst people higher than a certain league; - Being placed on a league, or being able to be promoted higher than a certain league; - Access to single player; - Name changes; - Clan tags; - Being able to play on all of the maps available for ladder; - etc.
On September 23 2012 16:06 lunchrush wrote: Does nobody else know how easy this is? If you have an account, you get a reduced price on another account.
I honestly believe that pay-to-smurf is a legitimate monetization strategy. Maybe everyone will make a smurf and Blizzard with make 1/6 of their profits all over again. Or just maybe, everybody and their brother will buy an account at a reduced rate, and the price of the game won't be the prohibitive $60 that's been killing their sales since day one.
All they need to do is make an ingame score with ingame currency like Riot's, but sell different kings. Not skins. Accounts. Sell whatever people will buy, just start trying things until something works. Sell another campaign. For fuck's sake sell Heart of the Swarm beta keys early. And don't make it your company's policy to complain that you don't know how to do something when you've never tried. This is the prohibitive thinking that stops LoL from having a map pool. Sell cheaper HD tickets to popular tournaments.
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.
And yeah, name changes would be pretty a pretty alright idea too.
This is the type of post that Blizzard NEEDS to see. Please, make this on Reddit. I along with a million other Redditors will upvote you to make sure these brilliant ideas are heard.
I'd like to add one thing, though. Selling tournament passes at a cheaper pass is a great idea, but going the Dota2 route might be worth considering too. In Dota2, you're able to spectate tournament games with a pass. Instead of having to deal with mediocre casters and observers, we can jump into the game ourselves and view exactly what we want to see. And sure, Blizzard should take a cut of the profit here, but the majority should go to the tournament holder to ensure that this addition does not interfere with their profits too much.
But the selling accounts was probably the best part of the post. Especially considering that at one point in time Blizzard had the UI implemented into StarCraft such that this addition would make a lot of sense. Does everyone remember when after logging in you had to select which character/account you wanted to play as? I mean immediately after entering your Email/Password there was a selection box that displayed your Character ID and Portrait. This screen would be immensely useful in implementing "bough-smurf accounts" at a lower price. The new accounts would still be tied to an email so it's not as if Blizzard is really losing all that much money (since two people can't log in at one time, this prevents an existing user from buying an account for his friend [though this isn't necessarily a bad idea]). Instead, Blizzard missed their chance with this and we now have the even more useless Initializing screen.
Another thing I read somewhere in the thread was something about how giving skins to units might result in unwanted advantages for different units (ie recognizing when roaches have burrow-movement). There could be an option that: 1. Disables all custom skins 2. Disables enemy custom skins 3. Enables only your own custom skins
Any of these would help remove confusion among competitive players. Hell, this option could even be something that you need to buy with Blizzard Points or whatever.
I see alot of stupid ideas tbh, nam changes and clantags are all good, custom skins as well if I can turn them off. However, pay for stuff that affects my game, like ladder maps and what not... I would uninstall within 5 seconds
On September 23 2012 16:13 Apolo wrote: No ways to monetize it?
Pay for: - Playing aggainst people higher than a certain league; - Being placed on a league, or being able to be promoted higher than a certain league; - Access to single player; - Name changes; - Clan tags; - Being able to play on all of the maps available for ladder; - etc.
Those ideas don't make sense. You realise the out roar that would happen if people payed to be higher than platinum. It would be stupid, it's basically pay to win.
On September 23 2012 16:40 Soma.bokforlag wrote: is it possible that they will add a monthly fee or something like that? i cant see any other ways to make money really
On September 23 2012 16:13 Apolo wrote: No ways to monetize it?
Pay for: - Playing aggainst people higher than a certain league; - Being placed on a league, or being able to be promoted higher than a certain league; - Access to single player; - Name changes; - Clan tags; - Being able to play on all of the maps available for ladder; - etc.
Those ideas don't make sense. You realise the out roar that would happen if people payed to be higher than platinum. It would be stupid, it's basically pay to win.
No its more like pay to be promoted and not pubstomp everyone around you
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.
-MP/Ladder only -replays -no SP -no Custom Maps (except for standard Blizzard/1v1 Melee maps) -no Map Editor -limited Bnet features -plastered with ads
and a normal retail with:
-SP -MP everything we currently have + more Bnet features
They're probably going to be veryyy careful about what they implement. Paid name changes and additional portraits I can see. Stat resets might be pushing it a little. Limiting anything that is available now and making someone pay for it seems a bit sketch and risky, like team colors, friends lists, channels, access to whatever modes, etc. Just seems like a really bad idea. Keep in mind that WoL is still free.
Just the multiplayer without achievements or any of that nonsense, so F2P people get stuck with default decals and portraits. Give "premium" players, as in people who spent money on SC2, a higher queue priority.
On September 23 2012 16:55 Zombo Joe wrote: Just the multiplayer without achievements or any of that nonsense, so F2P people get stuck with default decals and portraits. Give "premium" players, as in people who spent money on SC2, a higher queue priority.
a higher queue priority? also not a good idea i think
Jeez, guys.. Talk about a slow news day. Browder was asked about this in the panel at Valencia, and all he said was that they're "looking into it". You guys do know that this is Blizzard's standard answer for everything, right? It doesn't mean anything at all. They're not planning to make the change, and they're most likely not even seriously discussing it.
At the panel, Browder basically said that, if they could make money from it, they'd do it. Well, duh. Absolutely any question that begins with "If you could make money with.." would be answered with a clear "yes" by Blizzard (or nearly any other company, really).
But I'm sure this thread will go on for a dozen more pages with half the people in it seriously believing that Blizzard is actually having plans to do this. Oh, well..
On September 23 2012 16:49 grindC wrote: Maybe making a f2p version with:
-MP/Ladder only -replays -no SP -no Custom Maps (except for standard Blizzard/1v1 Melee maps) -no Map Editor -limited Bnet features -plastered with ads
and a normal retail with:
-SP -MP everything we currently have + more Bnet features
On September 23 2012 17:10 Conti wrote: Jeez, guys.. Talk about a slow news day. Browder was asked about this in the panel at Valencia, and all he said was that they're "looking into it". You guys do know that this is Blizzard's standard answer for everything, right? It doesn't mean anything at all. They're not planning to make the change, and they're most likely not even seriously discussing it.
At the panel, Browder basically said that, if they could make money from it, they'd do it. Well, duh. Absolutely any question that begins with "If you could make money with.." would be answered with a clear "yes" by Blizzard (or nearly any other company, really).
But I'm sure this thread will go on for a dozen more pages with half the people in it seriously believing that Blizzard is actually having plans to do this. Oh, well..
Microtransactions to buy additional: -Blizzard made map editing software (like whole new map functionality/doodads/etc) which means you will need it for any custom map that uses it. -avatars -names -clan tags -offcial blizzard background art -new sound tracks for units/music released by blizzard -option for map makers to charge if they really want to try, and take a percentage of that. -Split the multiplayer and single player, so for people who didn't buy anything yet, they can buy just the multiplayer or a specfic campaign of their choice for less then buying whole games. -pay a small fee to expand friendlist +100 -pay a fee to rent a specific channel such that the owner can have moderator powers and give priority to certain people (if fully boot one person over another). Also expand max channel size for this specific channel. -rent space in the bnet "cloud" to save replays or game data not already saved.
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.
In Australian when I bought Sc2 it cost me $90 (that's how much new games go for here). You honestly think the average player in Australia is going to spend $90 on paid name changes throughout their ownership of the game? Even if they manage to 'sell' twice as many copies as they do now, I highly doubt people would pay $45 on name changes throughout.
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.
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.
pretty much this, the story sucks massive deathballs but the gameplay itself is really fun
imo SC2's storyline is pretty much beyond redemption at this point, but having a steady stream of single player missions to buy doesn't need the strongest story lol
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.
pretty much this, the story sucks massive deathballs but the gameplay itself is really fun
imo SC2's storyline is pretty much beyond redemption at this point, but having a steady stream of single player missions to buy doesn't need the strongest story lol
Yeah, the gameplay itself was pretty underrated due to the MP being as stellar as it is. It has insane replay value due to the unit unlocks depending on the route you take and customising the units with all the research + upgrades.
Also, haven't seen many RTS games where (apart from the first 1-2 missions) you don't get the regular build a base and overrun your opponent as the only goal. Map specific mechanics (night/day time infested attacks, prioritising easier defense vs accomplishing the objective faster with a drill, a race for resources to gain a mercenary army's favour, etc) really make the game fun.
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.
But you've gotta see it in the right light. In the current iteration it would suck, because everyone's paid full price for the game. Nobody wants a DLC situation, or COD Elite. However, in a free to play version, everything else would be free and you'd be paying some of what you do now (probably not $60!) to gain full access.
I agree that paying for ladder games would suck hard, but paying to access some arcade maps? I could see that working.
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.
But you've gotta see it in the right light. In the current iteration it would suck, because everyone's paid full price for the game. Nobody wants a DLC situation, or COD Elite. However, in a free to play version, everything else would be free and you'd be paying some of what you do now (probably not $60!) to gain full access.
I agree that paying for ladder games would suck hard, but paying to access some arcade maps? I could see that working.
Completely new customers would be pushed away by this. F2P games generally have microtransactions in areas that do not effect the gameplay value directly, like cosmetic or "booster" type things.
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....
The gameplay was at least good.
The story line was trash though...if I buy the game, and that's a big if (I never even bought WoL), I'll play through it once...maybe twice depending on how Kerrigan upgrades work. It's just annoying how terrible the storyline was. For me the story is one of the most important parts of a campaign.
I kinda like the idea of free to play but I think it is risky. For me the only ways to make it work would be Clan Tags, Name Change, Small character details like the Thor thing or country flags or something like it. I also think replay trading, wanna see someones replay or want to sell a replay, auction house. Would allow top players to make some more money, and if blizz gets a cut then it would pay pretty quickly. Perhaps an option that you could pay for that would allow for you play in any league for 10 20 games. Maybe have random as the only only option to play in the free version and if you want to play a race for a set number of games then pay say $2. If you want access to play that race whenever then $5. Tournament idea is great with a 'buy in' to play of $2, with prize money and maybe a buy into the obs or stream for $x. Stream tournaments in the client and have an add free version for a price. You could watch MLG GSL or dreamhack for free in game or on twitch but if you want to go add free then pay, Blizz may have to pass some on to Tournaments or a tournament can opt to have the stream in client and not, up to them. Dunno these are just some of my ideas.
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....
The gameplay was at least good.
The story line was trash though...if I buy the game, and that's a big if (I never even bought WoL), I'll play through it once...maybe twice depending on how Kerrigan upgrades work. It's just annoying how terrible the storyline was. For me the story is one of the most important parts of a campaign.
if you are only interested in the story you should watch movies or read books. Interesting that you never played WoL but you are still here. What keeps you here?
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.
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....
The gameplay was at least good.
The story line was trash though...if I buy the game, and that's a big if (I never even bought WoL), I'll play through it once...maybe twice depending on how Kerrigan upgrades work. It's just annoying how terrible the storyline was. For me the story is one of the most important parts of a campaign.
if you are only interested in the story you should watch movies or read books. Interesting that you never played WoL but you are still here. What keeps you here?
Blizzard has done both game play and storyline well in one package, it's called WC3. We should expect equivalent quality not steps back.
meh ... I hope they won't find a way for sc2 to become f2p till the last expansion is out, afterwards I really don't care if they want to give their game the death stab. Free to pay won't have alot of effects on rts games playerbase wise maybe even a negative one. But of course if they scratch competitive play they would make a ton of money, that would kill espots though. Otherwise f2p won't be really more rentable then paying for it. At the end the most important thing for f2p is to add a monthly subscription that is just such an advantage that everyone will get it and you have the money flow of a p2p game + you can sell them simple support stuff really expensive.
They can monetize SC2 by making it into a succesful e-sport and taking a cut of all tournament revenues. All it depends on is if they make more money selling the game, or if the influx of new players and viewers is gonna make them more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 18:28 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.
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 18:15 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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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 19:13 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 19:13 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.
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.
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
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 can find a way to deal with hackers then I'm on board! One way could be that you can only play random with the F2P and if you pay a small amount you enable the option to play specific races!
Free to play games are traditionally riddled with hackers. Blizzard isn't capable of dealing with the hackers already in the game in a timely manner, how will they handle more? No way to host private servers either, so you'd be stuck laddering with a bunch of maphackers for months at a time.
I wouldn't mind skins or portraits . Built in tournaments would be sick too, sort of like MTG:Online. $1 or .50c entry fees, grand prize is the cash pool. Could go all the way up to $25 or so.
700 wins, 20 losses, 846 disconnects; if there's nothing to play for (and you can make infinite accounts), what's to stop people from just leaving the game whenever something goes wrong and restarting?
I'm kind of against this. They could sell skins etc as a way to partially monetize it, but it won't be big enough for that I feel. Other than that, the community level of IQ will sink with atleast 25, let's put it that way. Communities like this will stay the same, but Starcraft in general won't.
they sell skins : for everything you want nexus probes drones everything every single unit and structure . and they add a button in the interface that allows you to choice if you wanna see the game with or without " skins " . so every1 is happy . you pay to see your Zealots as Chuck Noris . other player still sees them as he wants . blizzard gets money . GAME IS FREE = no1 most played game .
Once they milk everybody for both expansions maybe. But only good business, good idea really. More games should go free-to-play after their prime is over. Its a great way to extend the life of your game
An easy way to get money is to display ads during load times and/or in the game menus. Something like: Click on "Play" and you get a 10-20 second ad instead of the load screen. If this is considered too much ads it might be set to every nth game (e.g. every 3rd game).
If you do not want that you pay $3 a month.
There might also be certain textures for the maps that can display ads, like the terrain for the 3rd and 4th base.
On September 23 2012 12:45 Niriw wrote: -Buy unlimited access to arcade and unlimited ladder games (maybe limited to 3-5 games a day of both arcade and ladder)
dear god i hope not, would ruin e-sports as a whole...
On September 24 2012 01:48 phobyftw wrote: WHen all expansions are out they will start to make War Craft IV so there is no need to make F2P when all expansions are out -_-
I feel bad for Warcraft fans, that won't happen untill like 10 years.
On September 24 2012 01:48 phobyftw wrote: WHen all expansions are out they will start to make War Craft IV so there is no need to make F2P when all expansions are out -_-
I feel bad for Warcraft fans, that won't happen untill like 10 years.
Sorry for offtopic but I highly doubt this will happen. They will continue to make money off WoW until it is as dead as ST:TOR then move on to Titan. They are riding Warcraft into a big blag hole storywise to milk the WoW players until the very end.
On September 24 2012 01:03 Ichabod wrote: 700 wins, 20 losses, 846 disconnects; if there's nothing to play for (and you can make infinite accounts), what's to stop people from just leaving the game whenever something goes wrong and restarting?
They'll probably just make WoL free to play after a few months of HotS. They'll stop selling the old game and after a longish while make it free so that the people that bought it late don't feel ripped off.
Microtransactions are a great way to monetize any game, but I would definitely be concerned about the implications for behavior that is currently bannable. If there is no monetary loss for being banned, BM and hacking are sure to increase.
On September 24 2012 01:03 Ichabod wrote: 700 wins, 20 losses, 846 disconnects; if there's nothing to play for (and you can make infinite accounts), what's to stop people from just leaving the game whenever something goes wrong and restarting?
Disconnects count as losses, so...?
Well, yea...but there's even less reason to stay in a game you get behind in if it's FP2 since you can remake an account whenever you want.
Discs were recorded in BW, so if someone's discs were really high compared to wins/losses, you he/she was just a sore loser.
Paid name change, different looking units (like collectors edition thor), games in Arcade that cost a small amount of money to unlock. I just hope it's not something completely retarded that affects ladder.
On September 24 2012 01:59 50bani wrote: They'll probably just make WoL free to play after a few months of HotS. They'll stop selling the old game and after a longish while make it free so that the people that bought it late don't feel ripped off.
This would be the best option and have hots price increased to 60. I do not want this game to turn into the LoL community which is awful.
The only F2P RTS I know of currently is Age Of Empires Online, and the way they did it is horrible. They basically made is so if you want to use the Imperial Age for any of the sides, you have to pay to use it and pay to have certain leaders which provide special units. So its basically, if you don't play, you can't get close to Tier 3 units or buildings.
They would have to go the way of League of Legends and make cosmetic options available, but it probably wouldn't be as profitable for them because they can't buff units with new skins to boost sales like Riot does with Champions.
Custom portraits, custom decals, name changes, clan tag? I don't know, and while I do want more people to play SCII, I'm not sure F2P would be profitable.
If this does happen then I could easily see a one time only pay -- premium account, where you can play campaign, arcade or whatever. People who have already got sc2 automatically get premium and without you only play unranked 1v1 on so on.
If they could figure this out it would def. be awesome. I do think that hackers would be a problem for sure, but it might be worth it if they could expand the eSports scene.
Why not just player-made in-game tournaments, where Blizzard makes a share of the money?
Example: I decide to start a 32 players tournament, inscription fees are 10$. Blizzard gets 10%, I get 10%, and the winner gets 80% (or 80 for 1st, 20 for 2rd, or whatever).
This doesn't seem like a really good idea for SC2, while I agree that if they go this route, they will need to find a balance. But, it be almost impossible to make not Pay-to-win.. Maybe you'd have to buy arcade games? But either way, it seems stupid and not probable.
When we think of Free to Play SC2, You've got to think 'What do they get the money from?' in that case. They've gotta sell something, so will the thing they sell impact the game itself, be purely cosmetic, and will an introduction of way more casuals create any issues?
On September 24 2012 04:56 SupLilSon wrote: I'd probably stop playing if it went F2P
Any reasoning behind that?
Like what would you be concerned about?
More hackers, more assholes, more cheaters, more spammers. Advertisements, having to pay for bazillions of little things, having the full game cost thousands of dollars instead of ~120. Maybe. At least that's why I'd stop playing if it happened.
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
Exactly, why can't teh blizzard employees think of stuff like this!- I mean we give them plenty of FREE ideas!!
I despise the idea of different unit skins.... I absolutely despise it and will not stand for it. Also, I despise portraits you have to buy. It suddenly makes the portrait not as cool as it could have been if it was earned through the game (although I really don't care weather or not blizzard adds this, I just won't buy any).
I mean I guess this could work if they made it so people who didn't pay wouldn't be able to play campaign and you could buy aesthetic stuff, but it's a stretch really
I don't really want to see them go down the F2P path. But if they did, I would like to see a lot of the custom banners and logos such as used in DOTA. I however, don't want them to have a limited F2P version that makes you pay for certain parts of the game(different modes, unlimited ladder,ect as I saw someone earlier post).
If hackers could remake illimited amount of accounts without having to pay for them, I believe we'd see the number of those grow exponentially. F2P is a bad idea imo...
f2p Multiplayer is the way to go. Singleplayer + "trendy" skins, sounds, characters or whatever are things that would be paid for and Blizzard would earn a lot of money this way. Best thing is - free multiplayer means shit tons of people playing (like in LoL), equals more viewers, equals more sponsors equals stronger SC2!
F2P multiplayer (f2p can't use chat/friends list maybe)
paid name changes
portraits/decals/ladder colours (let me pay $2 to play purple or even a pattern)
special models (collectors edition thor, etc, nothing too distracting)
Let community mappers sell their maps, take a cut, just like d3's auction house -> Sell filler campaign missions between expansions. I'm willing to bet people would play $5 for a small map pack that leads the story from WoL to HotS, and without cinematics it can't be that expensive to make
Built in tournaments/private ladders, Allowing people to pay to use b-net as a tournament hosting service (and giving big LAN tourneys a better framework to organize so many people)
that's my wishlist, basically. Things i'd pay extra for. They did great with WoW - there are all sorts of small cosmetic things you can buy with real money.
mmm one positive point does the f2p system have though, ladder will become unplayable so we will end up with indie ladders. But I would really miss being matched against pros I know.
I hope they ll go free 2 play so more people can check the game out and maybe they ll like it. I think maybe blizzard should give them like only 2on2 and 4on4 and arcade so if they like the game they can upgrade it for like 15 $ and get the full version.
Sc2's bnet experience is pretty terrible in general. and I certainly hope it won't come to free to play. jesus the ultimate casualfest.
I mean brood war had better features 10 years ago than sc2 has now. Wc3, heroes of newerth have better features. Dota2 is infititely better when it comes to the online experience. In brood war you could watch replays with multiple people, warcraft 3 had life games via bnet (waaaaggh tv) and automated tournaments. In wc3 you could also edit your profile, describe it, add some funny text, advert your clan, etc which isn't possible in sc2.
Imagine if you could check out the recent news regarding tournaments via bnet and then start downloading replays via bnet of the tournament finals etc, watch them with multiple people or even watch the games life via bnet? Sc2 in an alternate reality has all of these stuff, I guess we're stuck with the shitty one or have to wait on it for another 10 years. Or imagine just being able to check out a players profile, check his recent matches, and start downloading replays of them. It was all possible in heroes of newerth. Now if a player wanted his replays private, he could check an option for it.
Make wings of liberty free to play, then charge for hots which is the new best thing that everyone will want.
Wings being free won't affect most of the people who are serious about the game as they'll all be buying hots and the people who play f2p wings will look at hots and think "wow I want me some of that".
I don't think sc2 needs to be f2p, unless blizz wanted it to be more successful in china or something. Even then i dont think it would be a good thing.
I think the most important factor to look at is simply the sheer amount of people who would start playing sc2, especially if the future expansions were promised as free in terms of multiplayer.
Once SC2 streams and tournaments start getting bigger numbers, tournaments will make more money through advertisements.
Blizzard makes money off any tournament with a prize pool larger than 5000 dollars, so as long as the tournament benefits in addition to the paid content, like the single player campaign, outweigh the loss of an initial sales price for all players it should be a good move.
If player numbers grow, in-game advertising becomes more lucrative along with the tournaments.
So you have to ask yourself, Blizzard, if the initial 50 million or so in gross sales (wild guess) is better to have than a highly improved long term investment through creating a larger community.
I personally believe that such a hit to Blizzards business model in terms of releasing games is a bad idea given the current growth of esports. We're not there yet.
I think E-sports (sc2 streams in specific) events would need get consistently more than 100k viewers in order to make tournaments profitable enough that Blizzard could decide to stop asking for a purchase price and instead give away multiplayer in the hopes of making them even more profitable. In reality i don't really have much info or data to go by so there are just my impressions and feelings, so we'll see.
On September 24 2012 04:56 SupLilSon wrote: I'd probably stop playing if it went F2P
Any reasoning behind that?
Like what would you be concerned about?
More hackers, more assholes, more cheaters, more spammers. Advertisements, having to pay for bazillions of little things, having the full game cost thousands of dollars instead of ~120. Maybe. At least that's why I'd stop playing if it happened.
So all the things you've listed are symptoms of being a more popular game. Well minus hackers and cheaters(same thing), which has nothing to do with F2P and every thing to do with sc2 having client side data storage and not server side data storage.
If you want a bigger game you are going to have to except an increase in assholes and spammers(same thing);Its a byproduct of growth that will be left. It doesn't mean you couldn't then take measure to curb the behavior of them after they join though.
Tbh you come off as a guy who is irrationally resistant to change in fear of losing what he has.
SC2 however needs change it's not growing the rate it was in beta/early years, it's dropped off a lot of it's original player base to other games including F2P ones. If it went F2P it would have a much higher potential of attracting casuals; before you say you hate casuals look at the current foreigner BW community that is void of casuals.
Of course the entire premise of my argument is based on player base growth, so if you do not want growth it would probably be a good idea to stay non-F2P.
Make wings of liberty free to play, then charge for hots which is the new best thing that everyone will want.
Wings being free won't affect most of the people who are serious about the game as they'll all be buying hots and the people who play f2p wings will look at hots and think "wow I want me some of that".
Well I think it might work if they would just create a "Starcraft 2 f2p Client" in which you can do one thing: Enter a ladder game. Of course you can choose if its 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 or FFA and you can add friends (both using the f2p client and the normal old one) and play together.
Edit: Well thinking about it maybe a certain amount of custom play should be possible, too to play against friends or the KI, but still you want people too spend money so maybe not.
For everyone of us who bought the game nothing would have to change. And if there are too many new cheaters maybe there could just be a "paying player ladder" installed in addition.
So everyone who really likes the game would still buy it for single player, arcade, replays (!!!) and so on, but Blizzard could attract all those who want to play but don't want to spend money. Let's face it, i would've never paid money for LoL, but it was free to download so I tried, and from time to time when I'm not in the mood for SC2 i play one ore two rounds of LoL what I wouldn't do even if it only cost 1 Dollar.
Edit 2: New additional things like LAN or clan tags or any other cool stuff for the paying customers to increase the difference of possibilities between paying and f2p players would of course be very much appreciated, too. And my idea can also be combined with the idea of selling little things like skins or profile pictures to the f2p players while the paying players just get them so the f2p players see them in ladder and want them, too.
I don't like it. I suppose it would bring in more players, but really that isn't cool. The last thing I want is getting raged at by a sad 12 year old who doesn't care if he gets banned or not cuz it's free... And no, it wouldn't be pay-to-win, blizz isn't that dumb.
I don't get how people saying that F2P will kill anything. unless it's something stupid that screws up the balance like locking units or something I don't see why anything else will change (other than there be possibly more lower leagued players...which doesn't exactly matter) ?
On September 24 2012 07:39 Godwrath wrote: Truth is, so get better and more solid as an esport, starcraft multiplayer MUST go f2p.
No. To get better and more solid as an eSport blizzard needs to advertise the eSport side of StarCraft 2 more and reduce the price somewhat now that the game is older.
People think there is no consequence to cheating _now_, if SC2 accounts were free there would be even less of a consequence to cheating. Blizz banned you? No need to buy another account, just start a new free account! Blizz banned your IP? That's easy to fix too. If Blizzard found a fix to that and found a way to monetize the game that didn't turn it into P2W, didn't have obnoxious adverts, and just generally didn't do anything really irritating I'd be alright with it, but it's still not preferable. I'd rather they just reduce the cost of an SC2 account to $20 or some such.
There's just no way that cheating would be more of a problem than it already is.
This is pretty much the only way I see SC2 surviving long term as an active game, by at least making the expansion multiplayer free. Otherwise the expansions may very well kill it with the stacking cost, especially when the last one comes out.
Obviously there's no way that a game like SC2 will have gameplay-related microtransactions.
On September 24 2012 09:12 Talin wrote: There's just no way that cheating would be more of a problem than it already is.
This is pretty much the only way I see SC2 surviving long term as an active game, by at least making the expansion multiplayer free. Otherwise the expansions may very well kill it with the stacking cost, especially when the last one comes out.
Obviously there's no way that a game like SC2 will have gameplay-related microtransactions.
generally with blizz expansions they drop the price of the original and previous expansions so in total you don't pay that much more. Like you can buy WoW with everything up to WotLK for slightly more than WoW vanilla cost at release.
WoL will drop in price with release of HotS, so you will probably be paying about 30-50% more for both than you would have spent just for WoL. atm sc2 is $60 it will go down to $40 and HotS will be $30-40
if people are willing to drop $60 on the latest CoD game every 18 months, they should be willing to drop an extra $40 every 3 years for SC2
If they did end up finding a way to monetize an F2P model, one thing they could do is give people options to start their own 'ladders' and charge like 5-15$ a month for it. But the people who own/run that ladder have full control over who can play on it (could set it to private/invite only or have a public/any can play setting).... would help people play in a more hack free environment anyway.. and having a rise in hackers would be one of the bigger concerns if the game actually does go f2p one day.
Please no, i dont want angry LoL-like players in this community. That kind of grow is not worth this price. Also what is beatiful about SC - everyone is even, phenomenon not often seen these days with f2p skins, boosts, etc.
This is some of the most ridiculous commentary I have ever read. In no way does any of this make sense. Get a grip, SC2 being FTP is perfectly fine and in no way will it hurt the community. You guys act like if SC2 goes FTP that's it, its over. It's pay to win now! LOL, WTF? I thought we were smarter than this.
If they do f2p, I hope they do it like the new Phantasy Star (or at least, my understanding of how it will be when it comes out here) which is make it ftp, but be able to buy the full game for a price.
They could make just basic ladder free, and charge for campaigns and special blizzard made custom maps. Like, 30 bucks for a campaign, a dollar for a custom melee map or a flat fee for access to all the melee maps, something like the Left2Die maps charge a couple bucks. If they create enough achievements some people will want to buy these maps just to get the achievements.
Then use achievement points as a money system to spend towards things like skins or even more maps, so that you could theoretically unlock a bunch of stuff just by playing enough. This is what LoL does and the model works fantastically, and creates an atmosphere in which you just want to keep playing to unlock more stuff. But you can also spend real money to unlock something if you want to.
This would preserve balance, reap the benefits of LoL's f2p model, and also give people who just want to buy the full game that option.
Free to play will be the future of esports games and i hope blizzard will implement it to starcraft as soon as possible. The thing is it's harder to implement to rts game than to moba game and i hope blizzard will think of some brilliant way to make it work.
Why not kinda go like ICCup and make a paid Anti Hack Laucher for you to play ladder. Otherwise you can play custom games without it. Can make it 1.99 or .99 cents.
On September 23 2012 12:43 Irave wrote: Unlikely to happen anytime soon. If it was it would likely just be WoL, to get people into that, then to purchase Hots.
yeah prolly only after legacy of the void sales have dried up...
I can see this as F2P are rising to power quickly. Micro transactions for Maps, Skins, Portraits, Voice Pacts things like this could all be profitable in sc2
I don't really see how people can be against a multiplayer F2P for just melee maps/ladder, do you really think blizzard would be stupid enough to ruin the franchise by making any changes the the In-game play turning it into a p2w game?
They have a few options for supporting the game such as selling the single player campaign and the custom maps/arcade stuff and haveing the ladder and tournament maps be F2P, selling portraits, name changes, custom decals, clan tags, clans, different colours other than the default red and blue, name changes, region transfer, aesthetic stuff like the CE thors, Stat resets, Single player DLC that expands on the story not focused on in the campaign, Map editor tools, voice changes, UI skins, background music, ability to enter/organise player made tournaments (something similar was in wc3 i think?) and many other things that I can't think of.
I think that Blizzard sees the potential of e-sports and the immense growth in the sc2 industry in particular. My opinion is that they'll be targeting the e-sports industry to make money, whether it be through advertising, hosting tournaments, or more.
Perhaps the previous versions should go F2P when the expansions come out, but that's about it. Honestly $40 isn't a big barrier. Like I said previously if they want to go the F2P route (I doubt it'll happen anytime soon) that's fine, but it has to be implemented right. So far very few F2P games have managed to actually do it right.
If they go the route of selling unit skins I hope there is an option for other people to disable seeing them on their screen.
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
Paying for games, I for one am very happy you have nothing to do with the direction of SC.
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
Paying for games, I for one am very happy you have nothing to do with the direction of SC.
How did u get sc2 again?
"We're looking into it" is at least a much better answer then what they gave for LAN which was "Nah, never gonna happen"
Find it pretty funny they're looking in to microtransactions shortly after they shut down all our modding... Have a hunch some of our stuff from before 1.5 will end up on their store if this does happen.
Just set up the auto tourny thing with money prizes and buy-ins. They already have a deal setup with pay pal + diablo 3, they could follow the same route. pay like 2.50 to join, you get some percent of the total and the rest goes back to blizz.
And find a way to make everyone do it, without giving free money to smurfs.
the more i think about it, the less realistic this would be rofl
On September 24 2012 12:54 Discarder wrote: Other people here already suggested good limitations for f2p. Here it is: 1. Can only play 1v1 2. Can play only halfway through the campaign.
Didn't the post say the multiplayer could be free, the campaign would not be part of that surely, as its the single player? Also I think a better move would be to allow for custom games with friends for free rather than ladder, but some sort of incentive to spend money like actual ladder being a paid unlock for the people that play for free. Neither of those two options would allow you to play with your friends, which is normally the best motivator for buying/paying for a game.
On September 23 2012 13:18 OptimusYale wrote: Free to Play model just wouldn't work for an RTS
I mean what could you really pay for that won't ruin the game?
-Avatar -Flags/custom decals -Different Colors for your units in match making -Map Packs - Custom colored creep
What they should do is run the 2 side by side. Run the paid version of the game alongside a f2p version. But the f2p version only allows you to play one map on repeat for a day. On the f2p model you will also be in a league with other f2p players, where you do not acrue bonus pool, and the highest league you can get to is diamond.
Single player campaign. The fact that there's only 2 people (including me) who mentioned it saddens me.
The fact that the post that was linked said they're considering making multiplayer free to play, is enough reason as to why people didn't mention single player. It's already implied.
On September 24 2012 12:54 Discarder wrote: Other people here already suggested good limitations for f2p. Here it is: 1. Can only play 1v1 2. Can play only halfway through the campaign.
naw naw naw, it would be much better like this: 1. can only play FFA 2. can only play the first mission and then the last mission of the campaign. So new players will be like "lol this game so easy...oh wait"
Make sc2 quick match free to play with premium unit skins and animations like in LOL. This already exists, just look at the 2 thor models. Just put in a shit load of cool premium aesthetics that they can come up with, but would not change the game to the point that units/buildings become unrecognizable.
This will also help them promote blizzard allstars as a free to play with premium content like LOL.
Arcade mode and single player campaigns are premium content to unlock, but custom 1v1s to 4v4s are still unlocked
Who else thinks this is what sc2 needs to become f2p?
I think that the idea of Blizzard run daily online tournaments would be kind of cool. I'm not sure about what the price for entry should be.
One of my largest concerns with F2P has nothing to do with microtransactions. I think under a F2P model the number of smurfs would dramatically increase and also the community's standards would decline. People are often saying that even though there is a lot of BM in the SC community, it is nothing compared to that of F2P games.
what about adds? you could run them at the login, the main menu, or during the loading screen before each match. you could also allow people to pay the full price to remove adds. also I think not having single player in the add version would make sense.
I'm pretty sure you'd have to pay to ladder. The majority of players will be playing for the ladder, and they're going to want to make money from the majority. Also, if the ladder is free, there'll just be smurfs everywhere.
On September 24 2012 14:34 Teliko wrote: I'm pretty sure you'd have to pay to ladder. The majority of players will be playing for the ladder, and they're going to want to make money from the majority. Also, if the ladder is free, there'll just be smurfs everywhere.
Yeah I was just thinking that. I rather pay my one time game price and keep playing the game for what it is. Just monetize small things now.
On September 24 2012 14:34 Teliko wrote: I'm pretty sure you'd have to pay to ladder. The majority of players will be playing for the ladder, and they're going to want to make money from the majority. Also, if the ladder is free, there'll just be smurfs everywhere.
I'm pretty sure this is the right path to kill the game...tons of ppl are already inactive on ladder despite the fact that it's free.
Good idea honestly. This is the only thing that's keeping Sc2 from competing with LoL in terms of numbers. If it went FTP multiplayer like ICCUP does with Brood War where single player campaign is disabled many more people would play.
While in theory it would make Blizzard a lot more money, it would probably suck a lot for us users.
SC2 as a f2p game sounds horrible. Skins on units, limited arcade plays, ads, multiplayer options....hell no. Maybe name changes but that just sounds incredibly annoying and obnoxious for me. Overall it could be a good business move by Blizz and draw more players but it would royally piss me off.
Upgrade one time price to a full account:unlocks single player and custom games.
This would allow people who really want to play customs, take part in games with friends and single player to invest the money into the game they would otherwise have bought already. I feel its simple.
You can't monetize skins in SC2, but you can monetize other things such as the single player experience and the opportunity to play arcade or custom games.
- Implement a IP/RP points system (earn/pay system) from League of Legends. Separate micro transactions won't cut it, probably only paid name change would work by itself.
- Have 4v4 unlocked by default. F2P is all about playing with others and the F2P market should hit the 4v4 market better than the 1v1 market. You can unlock the other modes with points. This also doesn't flood 1v1 with smurfs.
- I thought of a crazy idea of having a competitive and casual mode. Competitive mode being the same it is now, casual mode being custom models and also custom units/upgrades that can be bought via the points system. Casual mode would be open for F2P while there would be limitations to the arcade + competitive (Say 5 games a day each) This makes sure F2P doesn't completely ruin the game.
- Make Terran & Random the only option for competitive/casual. For casual you can unlock the choice for Zerg/Protoss via ingame currency (IP) you can earn and for competitive only unlock the choice for Zerg/Protoss via real money (RP).
- Implement paid maps with the point system and also a priority system for paid maps in queues. (Let's say for 4v4 the only map open would be Deadlock Ridge, and if someone bought Megaton then it would be randomized in the queue)
- Earn points (IP in LoL) by playing games (winning obviously gives you more points). Winning arcade games gives you points. Getting achievement points gets you a small amount of paid points (RP once again) so those who purchase WoL are advantaged (via Campaign achievements). This also greatly encourages people to actually play the campaign if they bought the game.
- Like everybody else has said, paid portraits and etc...
In conclusion: People who get the free version get: - Unlimited 4v4 (eventually 3v3/2v2, limited 1v1), earn points to unlock 3v3, 2v2, 1v1 etc... - Play only Terran/Random until they purchase Zerg/Protoss but only for casual - No early access to smurf 1v1 unless they purchase via real money or earn it
People who get the free version who actually buy stuff can get: - Custom stuff for casual - Quicker way to earn maps/modes/access to arcade - More stuff - Option for Zerg and Protoss in competitive
People who already have SC2 - Everything (incl. Campaign) + Casual mode - Blizzard can make more money off people who have already paid via casual system of cosmetic stuff
Once again, just my ideas. F2P is actually pretty realistic if you think about it.
On September 24 2012 15:14 HoriZoNXI wrote: My ideas if it were to ever happen:
- Implement a IP/RP points system (earn/pay system) from League of Legends. Separate micro transactions won't cut it, probably only paid name change would work by itself.
- Have 4v4 unlocked by default. F2P is all about playing with others and the F2P market should hit the 4v4 market better than the 1v1 market. You can unlock the other modes with points. This also doesn't flood 1v1 with smurfs.
- I thought of a crazy idea of having a competitive and casual mode. Competitive mode being the same it is now, casual mode being custom models and also custom units/upgrades that can be bought via the points system. Casual mode would be open for F2P while there would be limitations to the arcade + competitive (Say 5 games a day each) This makes sure F2P doesn't completely ruin the game.
- Make Terran & Random the only option for competitive/casual. For casual you can unlock the choice for Zerg/Protoss via ingame currency (IP) you can earn and for competitive only unlock the choice for Zerg/Protoss via real money (RP).
- Implement paid maps with the point system and also a priority system for paid maps in queues. (Let's say for 4v4 the only map open would be Deadlock Ridge, and if someone bought Megaton then it would be randomized in the queue)
- Earn points (IP in LoL) by playing games (winning obviously gives you more points). Winning arcade games gives you points. Getting achievement points gets you a small amount of paid points (RP once again) so those who purchase WoL are advantaged (via Campaign achievements). This also greatly encourages people to actually play the campaign if they bought the game.
- Like everybody else has said, paid portraits and etc...
In conclusion: People who get the free version get: - Unlimited 4v4, earn points to unlock 3v3, 2v2, 1v1 etc... - Play only Terran/Random until they purchase Zerg/Protoss but only for casual - No early access to smurf 1v1 unless they purchase via real money or earn it
People who get the free version who actually buy stuff can get: - Custom stuff for casual - Quicker way to earn maps/modes/access to arcade - More stuff - Option for Zerg and Protoss in competitive
People who already have SC2 - Everything (incl. Campaign) + Casual mode - Blizzard can make more money off people who have already paid via casual system of cosmetic stuff
Once again, just my ideas. F2P is actually pretty realistic if you think about it.
So long as I can pay one time price for everything all at once: Im ok with it. HAVING to play 4v4 for X amount of time and then paying real money to use my main race is a horrible idea from the standpoint of a masters level protoss. We don't want to eliminate or anger the existing user base after all.
On September 24 2012 14:34 Teliko wrote: I'm pretty sure you'd have to pay to ladder. The majority of players will be playing for the ladder, and they're going to want to make money from the majority. Also, if the ladder is free, there'll just be smurfs everywhere.
I'm pretty sure this is the right path to kill the game...tons of ppl are already inactive on ladder despite the fact that it's free.
Wow nevermind what i wrote!Completely misunderstood the thread. -.-"
On September 24 2012 15:14 HoriZoNXI wrote: My ideas if it were to ever happen:
- Implement a IP/RP points system (earn/pay system) from League of Legends. Separate micro transactions won't cut it, probably only paid name change would work by itself.
- Have 4v4 unlocked by default. F2P is all about playing with others and the F2P market should hit the 4v4 market better than the 1v1 market. You can unlock the other modes with points. This also doesn't flood 1v1 with smurfs.
- I thought of a crazy idea of having a competitive and casual mode. Competitive mode being the same it is now, casual mode being custom models and also custom units/upgrades that can be bought via the points system. Casual mode would be open for F2P while there would be limitations to the arcade + competitive (Say 5 games a day each) This makes sure F2P doesn't completely ruin the game.
- Make Terran & Random the only option for competitive/casual. For casual you can unlock the choice for Zerg/Protoss via ingame currency (IP) you can earn and for competitive only unlock the choice for Zerg/Protoss via real money (RP).
- Implement paid maps with the point system and also a priority system for paid maps in queues. (Let's say for 4v4 the only map open would be Deadlock Ridge, and if someone bought Megaton then it would be randomized in the queue)
- Earn points (IP in LoL) by playing games (winning obviously gives you more points). Winning arcade games gives you points. Getting achievement points gets you a small amount of paid points (RP once again) so those who purchase WoL are advantaged (via Campaign achievements). This also greatly encourages people to actually play the campaign if they bought the game.
- Like everybody else has said, paid portraits and etc...
In conclusion: People who get the free version get: - Unlimited 4v4, earn points to unlock 3v3, 2v2, 1v1 etc... - Play only Terran/Random until they purchase Zerg/Protoss but only for casual - No early access to smurf 1v1 unless they purchase via real money or earn it
People who get the free version who actually buy stuff can get: - Custom stuff for casual - Quicker way to earn maps/modes/access to arcade - More stuff - Option for Zerg and Protoss in competitive
People who already have SC2 - Everything (incl. Campaign) + Casual mode - Blizzard can make more money off people who have already paid via casual system of cosmetic stuff
Once again, just my ideas. F2P is actually pretty realistic if you think about it.
So long as I can pay one time price for everything all at once: Im ok with it. HAVING to play 4v4 for X amount of time and then paying real money to use my main race is a horrible idea from the standpoint of a masters level protoss. We don't want to eliminate or anger the existing user base after all.
The point of my idea is that there is no way F2P works with how sc2 currently works, and if it were to happen would completely destroy sc2. My idea would create a more casual side to sc2 so that there is both a casual and competitive side for people to earn their way and for the existing user base to keep playing like normal.
I'm a firm believer in F2P being the best option once you get over fears. Blizzard can monetize of paying customers through ingame stores and nonpaying customers through stream/ad revenues.
F2P means you get a huge influx of Chinese gamers. That fanbase sustained the WC3 eSports scene for many years, just like Korea did with BW. More hardcore active players means more viewerships means more sponsors. Perhaps even a separate F2P version of Bnet can be coded with ad-banners. I vaguely remember old bnet having Blizzard ad banners and given the current state of eSports and sponsorship (hell Razor sponsors 3/4s of the SC2 teams anyhow).
As for microtransactions, I think a common misconception people (like myself) have had is that no sane person would pay for cosmetics (eventually forcing a company to adopt a pay-to-win model). If you just look at the Dota 2 & Heroes of Newerth models, you can see evidence to the contrary. People buy random shit... a lot of it.
Cheating can't really be solved, but it can be controlled with separate ladders. People who like the game enough will eventually pay to ladder on the current ones.
Seems like a hard idea to make SC2 F2P, but it could bring more people to the community, but that could also more annoying people to the community, which gives the community a bad reputation. But no matter what i'm still gonna pay full price for the next Starcraft 2 expansions, i care about the story and map maker too much.
SC2 actually have a F2P access right now in free trial. Blizz can always expand the limitation of it a little bit so it might attract more people.
For me, I think having free access to some custom maps in multiplayer or skirmish against AI is good, then you can pay for either full access to the Campaign mode or the full ladder system should be a good first step if they want to make SC2 free to play.
Free Customs, team matchmaking(unranked - keeps track of MMR, but no way to track games played or statistics in client) games. This is where you get your player base from. If you want the player base to grow this is where it's going to come from, not from 1v1, regardless of what other people may think. Map Maker(No release functionality) Campaign Demo Levels. In client advertising for events, streams etc. Big and obnoxious. Paid accounts can minimize this.
Paid(whether it be like $20 or like TF2 where you make a micro transaction and get a "premium" account) 1v1 Matchmaking(ranked and unranked) Team ranked matchmaking Campaign(full) Map Maker(Release functionality)
Microtransactions
Primarily skins. I don't think people will pay for custom games, regardless of how entertaining they are. Modifications should be limited primarily to low count units, workers, and buildings Portrait, Decal trading: Maybe you have like 100 unlockable portraits/decals that drop randomly like TF2 hats, and you can trade those around. The current decals definitely need to be more noticeable though.
On September 24 2012 07:33 FlilFlam wrote: I think the most important factor to look at is simply the sheer amount of people who would start playing sc2, especially if the future expansions were promised as free in terms of multiplayer.
Once SC2 streams and tournaments start getting bigger numbers, tournaments will make more money through advertisements.
Blizzard makes money off any tournament with a prize pool larger than 5000 dollars, so as long as the tournament benefits in addition to the paid content, like the single player campaign, outweigh the loss of an initial sales price for all players it should be a good move.
If player numbers grow, in-game advertising becomes more lucrative along with the tournaments.
So you have to ask yourself, Blizzard, if the initial 50 million or so in gross sales (wild guess) is better to have than a highly improved long term investment through creating a larger community.
I personally believe that such a hit to Blizzards business model in terms of releasing games is a bad idea given the current growth of esports. We're not there yet.
I think E-sports (sc2 streams in specific) events would need get consistently more than 100k viewers in order to make tournaments profitable enough that Blizzard could decide to stop asking for a purchase price and instead give away multiplayer in the hopes of making them even more profitable. In reality i don't really have much info or data to go by so there are just my impressions and feelings, so we'll see.
So by how much exactly does blizzard benefit with price pools larger than 5k?
The moment you turn a game to f2p the community is gonna skyrocket in numbers and with numbers comes retards. I could allready see the hate between posters that have been here since it all started and the people who only found out about this site when SC2 came out. Now imagine if it would go f2p. Imagine these forums :D.
It is premature to comment if SC2 going F2P is a good idea... We will have to wait until Blizzard announce its new way to monetize SC2 before we can give any constructive comments.
On September 24 2012 09:12 Talin wrote: There's just no way that cheating would be more of a problem than it already is.
This is pretty much the only way I see SC2 surviving long term as an active game, by at least making the expansion multiplayer free. Otherwise the expansions may very well kill it with the stacking cost, especially when the last one comes out.
Obviously there's no way that a game like SC2 will have gameplay-related microtransactions.
generally with blizz expansions they drop the price of the original and previous expansions so in total you don't pay that much more. Like you can buy WoW with everything up to WotLK for slightly more than WoW vanilla cost at release.
WoL will drop in price with release of HotS, so you will probably be paying about 30-50% more for both than you would have spent just for WoL. atm sc2 is $60 it will go down to $40 and HotS will be $30-40
if people are willing to drop $60 on the latest CoD game every 18 months, they should be willing to drop an extra $40 every 3 years for SC2
I'm aware of the price drop. The problem, however, isn't only for people who need to pay $40 every 3 years, it's for people who need to pay $80 to get into Starcraft 2 when the expansions are out - and you can bet anything you want that there won't be many people willing to pay that much to get into an rts game that's only getting older. Even the original $60 price was very steep for Starcraft 2, I was pretty surprised at the time that they would go for the full AAA price tag.
There's no way you can compare an RTS to games like CoD or any MMO titles really and expect it to sell the same at the same prices. It's just not going to happen. The target audiences are different and the gameplay itself doesn't really hook people in (quite the contrary).
The fact Blizzard are even considering the f2p solution means that they're aware that sales are going to be problematic to say the least.
On September 24 2012 09:12 Talin wrote: There's just no way that cheating would be more of a problem than it already is.
This is pretty much the only way I see SC2 surviving long term as an active game, by at least making the expansion multiplayer free. Otherwise the expansions may very well kill it with the stacking cost, especially when the last one comes out.
Obviously there's no way that a game like SC2 will have gameplay-related microtransactions.
generally with blizz expansions they drop the price of the original and previous expansions so in total you don't pay that much more. Like you can buy WoW with everything up to WotLK for slightly more than WoW vanilla cost at release.
WoL will drop in price with release of HotS, so you will probably be paying about 30-50% more for both than you would have spent just for WoL. atm sc2 is $60 it will go down to $40 and HotS will be $30-40
if people are willing to drop $60 on the latest CoD game every 18 months, they should be willing to drop an extra $40 every 3 years for SC2
I'm aware of the price drop. The problem, however, isn't only for people who need to pay $40 every 3 years, it's for people who need to pay $80 to get into Starcraft 2 when the expansions are out - and you can bet anything you want that there won't be many people willing to pay that much to get into an rts game that's only getting older. Even the original $60 price was very steep for Starcraft 2, I was pretty surprised at the time that they would go for the full AAA price tag.
There's no way you can compare an RTS to games like CoD or any MMO titles really and expect it to sell the same at the same prices. It's just not going to happen. The target audiences are different and the gameplay itself doesn't really hook people in (quite the contrary).
The fact Blizzard are even considering the f2p solution means that they're aware that sales are going to be problematic to say the least.
You do know that sc2 sold 3 million copies in a month which is very good for RTS's. Also every game is 60$ now of days that's made by a known publisher. Doesn't matter the genre or anything. There are plenty of non shooter/mmo's that are 60$ so it's not surprising that they priced all their games the same as everyone else.
Im fine with this as long it is just new ladder maps, unit skins and such, after all I have paid 50e for hundreds of hours of game play and they still making more maps and shit, I feel like I should pay more.
On September 24 2012 09:12 Talin wrote: There's just no way that cheating would be more of a problem than it already is.
This is pretty much the only way I see SC2 surviving long term as an active game, by at least making the expansion multiplayer free. Otherwise the expansions may very well kill it with the stacking cost, especially when the last one comes out.
Obviously there's no way that a game like SC2 will have gameplay-related microtransactions.
generally with blizz expansions they drop the price of the original and previous expansions so in total you don't pay that much more. Like you can buy WoW with everything up to WotLK for slightly more than WoW vanilla cost at release.
WoL will drop in price with release of HotS, so you will probably be paying about 30-50% more for both than you would have spent just for WoL. atm sc2 is $60 it will go down to $40 and HotS will be $30-40
if people are willing to drop $60 on the latest CoD game every 18 months, they should be willing to drop an extra $40 every 3 years for SC2
I'm aware of the price drop. The problem, however, isn't only for people who need to pay $40 every 3 years, it's for people who need to pay $80 to get into Starcraft 2 when the expansions are out - and you can bet anything you want that there won't be many people willing to pay that much to get into an rts game that's only getting older. Even the original $60 price was very steep for Starcraft 2, I was pretty surprised at the time that they would go for the full AAA price tag.
There's no way you can compare an RTS to games like CoD or any MMO titles really and expect it to sell the same at the same prices. It's just not going to happen. The target audiences are different and the gameplay itself doesn't really hook people in (quite the contrary).
The fact Blizzard are even considering the f2p solution means that they're aware that sales are going to be problematic to say the least.
You do know that sc2 sold 3 million copies in a month which is very good for RTS's. Also every game is 60$ now of days that's made by a known publisher. Doesn't matter the genre or anything. There are plenty of non shooter/mmo's that are 60$ so it's not surprising that they priced all their games the same as everyone else.
And then it sold only 4.5 overall (if the link I'm reading are correct, but I doubt they are off by much). And that's the original Starcraft 2, that had a lot of hype and expectations behind it, so plus the Blizzard marketing they got away with a decent but not stunning number of sales. Expansions, however, will be a different story.
Every known publisher certainly doesn't price all their games at $60, and even when they do, the discounts hit very early and very often nowadays. While many games still get priced higher than they should, it's probably smarter for an RTS game to veer away from the AAA-land. There's only so many games that people will pay for at that price, and too much competition to deal with.
On September 24 2012 16:53 FinBenton wrote: Im fine with this as long it is just new ladder maps, unit skins and such, after all I have paid 50e for hundreds of hours of game play and they still making more maps and shit, I feel like I should pay more.
I feel like blizzard should pay me to play on their maps.
I think a F2P model can work for SC2, but I would like it if they still would offer a complete package for $50-70. That way you can make SC2 more known for a larger audience, but if you paid for the full version, you could gain access to a premium laddering system.
I think a very good option for blizzard to expand their income, is to offer the possibility to buy another character name on the same battle.net account (for smurfing or switching races) for around $10-15.
It would probably cause a sick Starcraft2 boom as an e-sport, where it would finally destroy games like LoL in numbers.
Seriously, there are so many ways to make it possible, you could just lock the number of games per day, make it impossible to chat, use clan tags etc. Obviously they would have to implement a lot of new feautres, but as long as they don't change anything in the game, I would be as thrilled as ever to see them come.
Just make the multiplayer 1v1 (and teams) ladder and melee custom games free to play. Campaign, Arcade, special portraits and stuff only accesible when you buy the full game.
It will probably happen eventually. Blizzard could have a seperate multiplayer game mode where you can unlock stuff like the baneling splitters from campaign, and get special portraits or unit graphical changes, and they could keep patching units like the replicator in and not care about balance too much. Doubt they would tamper with the standard 1v1.
If the game goes f2p pretty sure people who already bought or will buy the FULL GAME, won't pay anyfuckingmore for anything except skins, portraits, that kind of stat, NOT for playing THE content you already paid for. Common sense guys, common sense.
I support the idea of a free-to-play SC2. This is the only way to gain players and compete with the big boys (LoL, DotA2,HoN) of e-sports. The best way to go about monetizing is portraits and skins (maybe even throw in some ladder maps). If you think about it, we already have this idea implemented in the dark templar. When you make a dark templar it either makes the "brood war" version, or the one with a scythe. The same thing can be done to any other unit. It doesn't c hange anything to the gameplay but it adds a lot to the look of the game. (you could make custom buildings too not just units). Plenty of cool ideas to explore and it makes sc2 look better.
you could also just have a button that would turn off all the skins and dohickys, so that if you just like sc2 and not all the crap you never have to look at it. i would be fine with F2P
So, the goal here is to have more players go for starcraft 2 right? If yes, then good marketing should be done. There should be posters, flyers, ads in internet cafes, malls, gameshops and in the internet that there is indeed a f2p sc2. The word should be spread. People may also not care because they are playing something else already. Foreign gamers out there should know that we have this beautiful community known as "starcraft"
i don't understand. does this mean they'll refund the copy of sc2 that i already bought? how can you turn a game that is already out and sold millions of copies into ftp?
Name changes. Stat Reset. P2P automated Skill grouped tournaments daily. Really cool emotes for ingame. [example GG button] Insane portraits. Only problem I can see is what happens to us who bought the game?
I didn't find any free re-player or online-viewer of SC; may be free playing was not the best idea, but... what about free "passive" clients to look matchs online, offline or both? If you want to gain e-Viewers for the e-Sport you may need something like a SC-Reader...
This would also mean a lot more players and lot bigger tournaments, bigger price pools, more teams, a lot more skilled players, more competition, bigger audience, a lot more jobs in esports etc.. its not so bad some of you think lol.
On September 24 2012 18:50 Space Invader wrote: i don't understand. does this mean they'll refund the copy of sc2 that i already bought? how can you turn a game that is already out and sold millions of copies into ftp?
Why would they refund? You bought it almost 2 years ago (probably) and enjoyed it during all this time.
If you buy a t-shirt, wear it for 3 months, and then it goes on a 50% sale in a shop, do you go and demand a refund? Seriously, this is a common sense.
How much did you pay for sc2? Because last weekend it was on sale for 25eu instead of regular price, can you imagine someone e-mailing blizzard and asking for refund because a year ago it was 40eu?
Second thing, remember that people using free 2 play would have limited options in game, so basically you would be paying to enjoy the game in full.
There is no way I can see that work in SC2, for other games as LoL or Action RPG/MMORPG this model suits perfectly fine. F2P didn't even work that well in quakelive. There is a big risk in ruining the game if they don't do that well.
The initial cost as a barrier to entry is only part of the reason that SC2 isn't far and away the most payed competitive game. More than the initial cost, SC is takes a significant time investment in order to get good at, is more difficult, and often less social than other games. That being said, I am all for making SC2 free-to-play, provided it doesn't become pay to win.
On September 24 2012 18:50 Space Invader wrote: i don't understand. does this mean they'll refund the copy of sc2 that i already bought? how can you turn a game that is already out and sold millions of copies into ftp?
That's a very weird logic. I paid 45€ for sc2 on release day, now you can get it for around 20€. Does blizzard now have to give me my 25€ back?
Of course they shouldn't remove content you paid for and make you pay again. But they certainly can change their payment system and give out content for free even though you paid for it a while ago.
My idea how a sc2 f2p might work:
Increase the content of the starter edition. Every race is playable, all current laddermaps for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 anf FFA are available.
for 10-20€ or whatever you get one of the three campaign episodes, called WoL, HotS and LotV.
for 10€ each you can activate WoL/HotS/LotV ladder
for 10-20€ you can activate the arcade
for 1-5€ you get small stand alone campaigns in the sc2 universe
don't call the starter edition starter edition but simply "starcraft 2".
everyone who bought WoL old style already has WoL campaign, WoL ladder and arcade
And that's pretty much it. So f2p is probably the wrong name for it, because it has nothing to do with the common micro transactions, but i guess you could call it a "modular" payment system. You don't have to pay for everything at once but you can get it in small pieces.
FREE - multiplayer - one name change - news and streams to competitve play ingame client - first mission of the campaign
PAID - campaign - clan status - one bad ass skin per unit ( you don't want the game to be a circus with many skins) - name change - Sponsored area on the buildings (profesional teams only) - blizzard avatars - custom avatars - gsl map pack on ladder
Etc....
F2p is a great idea only if done right and wih moderation.
On September 24 2012 18:50 Space Invader wrote: i don't understand. does this mean they'll refund the copy of sc2 that i already bought? how can you turn a game that is already out and sold millions of copies into ftp?
The same way they turned tf2 into a f2p game.... it has been done before.
I'm okay with F2P multiplayer in team games. Some people really like 2v2, so maybe it should only be F2P for 3v3 and 4v4. These team games appeal to the most casual of players.
On September 24 2012 18:50 Space Invader wrote: i don't understand. does this mean they'll refund the copy of sc2 that i already bought? how can you turn a game that is already out and sold millions of copies into ftp?
It's been done before. Many, many times. Usually it's done by giving the people that paid for it additional benefits like free items or unique skins and stuff like that.
DB said SC2 multiplayer might be free to play. Keep it simple guys, the obvious answer as to how theyre still going to make money is by still requiring people pay if they want singleplayer. The SC lore and storyline are loved well enough by the gaming public that the demand is there to cover the cost of a free multiplayer experience.
Well SC2 does not generate so much cash some people think. By going free they can greatly enlarge the audience. Chinese scene alone would give a huge boost. SC2 can become the first really huge eSport game. Reputation alone of achieving that is good for blizzard's current cash cow WoW and future ones. While adding payed content in bigger scene will also compensate alot.
A good starting point would be to improve the starter edition. Unlock all the races, add more maps. Open up the 4v4 ladder and FFAs. Let them play the blizzard ums (starjeweled, aiur chef, sc2 master).
Paid name changes maybe. Custom game skins or something. Portraits. I feel like in 1v1 unit change designs or buildings could confuse ppl too much, depending on how drastic the change is. maybe if it was like chronoboost/larva/mule change color or something like that. idk
From what I know free trial version is expanding. It allowed to play only terran at first now all races are available.
On September 23 2012 14:16 HardlyNever wrote: I wouldn't mind this terribly as long as we still had the option to purchase everything up front (sp/mp and all related goodies) like the current model.
My biggest concern would be the affect on the player-base/community. I know the SC2 community isn't a shining example of maturity, but it's much, much better than all the F2P games I've played.
F2P = omg horrible community in my experience.
BW was basicly F2P because of how widespread pirated version was. Hell, ICCUP was even holding it available for download right on their site. So was BW community horrible?
There's no argument on "pay2win". When they are talking about going the F2P route for e-sports, it would work like DOTA2. You have everything avaible from the beginning, but you could get special visuals or sounds for your units. Pretty sure there a few more things to make it more profitable, but it won't involve any kind of p2w guys.
And many people would buy HotS just for the campaign, or to support blizzard. I know i would buy it even the multiplayer was free just to support a company which i think is looking to improve his e-sport.
On September 24 2012 20:13 ceaRshaf wrote: FREE - multiplayer - one name change - news and streams to competitve play ingame client - first mission of the campaign
PAID - campaign - clan status - one bad ass skin per unit ( you don't want the game to be a circus with many skins) - name change - Sponsored area on the buildings (profesional teams only) - blizzard avatars - custom avatars - gsl map pack on ladder
Etc....
F2p is a great idea only if done right and wih moderation.
I think it's a bad idea in general. First "free to play" is a misnomer. It should be "free to see a demo".
While the 60 bucks for Wol and approximately 45 buck for Hots is quite a hurdle, it is also reassuring "pay once and get access to all content". It is good for the peace of mind.
I'm getting all expansions anyway. If they make it free, then it would be even better for me. Unless of course Blizzards implents some options that are basically "pay to win".
I'd pay to have different ladder leagues...aka, I could be gold zerg, gold terran, grandmaster protoss, instead of...hey I really want to play the other races, but dont want to buy the game all over again or ruin my current ranking....
On September 25 2012 00:45 Souldrinkah wrote: There will be a ton of smurfers if Starcraft will be free to play.
And? It's not like that would ruin the game
On September 25 2012 00:45 Bygone wrote: I'd pay to have different ladder leagues...aka, I could be gold zerg, gold terran, grandmaster protoss, instead of...hey I really want to play the other races, but dont want to buy the game all over again or ruin my current ranking....
With f2p you could just create 3 accounts and do it though it could still be an option to pay for separate ladder ranks.
So if they did a "free to play" model would that mean that LAN would be a viable option for the game? That would essentially eliminate the pirating concern right? If they're generating their money through in game purchases I don't see how adding LAN mode would hurt, shoot I would even pay a few bucks to get that feature at that point. Just a thought, haven't seen anyone else mention it.
On September 25 2012 00:51 Achaia wrote: So if they did a "free to play" model would that mean that LAN would be a viable option for the game? That would essentially eliminate the pirating concern right? If they're generating their money through in game purchases I don't see how adding LAN mode would hurt, shoot I would even pay a few bucks to get that feature at that point. Just a thought, haven't seen anyone else mention it.
Depends on if the things you could buy with microtransactions would be ripped to that version but yea, LAN definitely should be a possibility if it goes F2P.
On September 25 2012 00:51 Achaia wrote: So if they did a "free to play" model would that mean that LAN would be a viable option for the game? That would essentially eliminate the pirating concern right? If they're generating their money through in game purchases I don't see how adding LAN mode would hurt, shoot I would even pay a few bucks to get that feature at that point. Just a thought, haven't seen anyone else mention it.
Depends on if the things you could buy with microtransactions would be ripped to that version but yea, LAN definitely should be a possibility if it goes F2P.
Oh god, again with the LAN... I thought we were done with this... I guess we will never be done with this...
On September 25 2012 00:51 Achaia wrote: So if they did a "free to play" model would that mean that LAN would be a viable option for the game? That would essentially eliminate the pirating concern right? If they're generating their money through in game purchases I don't see how adding LAN mode would hurt, shoot I would even pay a few bucks to get that feature at that point. Just a thought, haven't seen anyone else mention it.
Depends on if the things you could buy with microtransactions would be ripped to that version but yea, LAN definitely should be a possibility if it goes F2P.
Oh god, again with the LAN... I thought we were done with this... I guess we will never be done with this...
it will be said till they add it, which won t happen
On September 25 2012 00:51 Achaia wrote: So if they did a "free to play" model would that mean that LAN would be a viable option for the game? That would essentially eliminate the pirating concern right? If they're generating their money through in game purchases I don't see how adding LAN mode would hurt, shoot I would even pay a few bucks to get that feature at that point. Just a thought, haven't seen anyone else mention it.
Depends on if the things you could buy with microtransactions would be ripped to that version but yea, LAN definitely should be a possibility if it goes F2P.
Oh god, again with the LAN... I thought we were done with this... I guess we will never be done with this...
Well the main reason for them not including LAN was because of piracy and it seems that this would no longer be a concern with free to play model. Why wouldn't they include that feature if it adds value to their game at no risk to them? There are plenty of situations where LAN would be very useful to have, namely for tournament organizers. If they don't add it that's fine, I just don't see why they wouldn't if piracy isn't an issue.
Since I already have 4 accounts, this would be good. I only play zerg and have no interest in the campaign... with the current model I would be paying for 2 units, 2 abilities, and rocks that can spawn more rocks.
But with f2p model, I would be willing to spend some bucks on customisation of my units (badass roach skin).
Aslo would be awesome to see Teams (like EG) using banners or uniforms on their units. Some people pay to have t-shirts of soccer teams u know? not a surprise that many people would personalise their units as those from proTeams.
On September 25 2012 00:45 Souldrinkah wrote: There will be a ton of smurfers if Starcraft will be free to play.
And? It's not like that would ruin the game
You are right. People who like to constantly play dramatically uneven matches would really like this change.
I doubt people are going to make an account to play dramatically uneven matches.
You still need to lose or you will be promoted. So you could play 15 or so games on each account just to troll players?
I doubt most people would have the energy to do this.
As for the issue of hackers being brought up by people:
Blizzard already does very little about it and the bans are temp bans anyway for the most part so nothing would change there.
Unless you are at least OK at the game, the hack won't necessarily help you. At best you will see more diamond players get promoted to masters using hackers than you would see a deterioration of general gameplay at the lower levels of play.
On September 25 2012 00:51 Achaia wrote: So if they did a "free to play" model would that mean that LAN would be a viable option for the game? That would essentially eliminate the pirating concern right? If they're generating their money through in game purchases I don't see how adding LAN mode would hurt, shoot I would even pay a few bucks to get that feature at that point. Just a thought, haven't seen anyone else mention it.
Depends on if the things you could buy with microtransactions would be ripped to that version but yea, LAN definitely should be a possibility if it goes F2P.
Oh god, again with the LAN... I thought we were done with this... I guess we will never be done with this...
This is a completely different concern than just complaining that there's no LAN. F2P would eliminate almost every concern they had when deciding to remove LAN...and you wouldn't have professional players dropping at major tournaments.
All that being said, it's really sad that people are so against the idea of paying for a game now that this is what the market is coming to.
They should make a new casual focused monobattle league that runs separately from normal ladder. People start off with only one unit or set of tier 1 units to choose from. Winning gets you points to unlock more units and abilities.
On September 25 2012 00:51 Achaia wrote: So if they did a "free to play" model would that mean that LAN would be a viable option for the game? That would essentially eliminate the pirating concern right? If they're generating their money through in game purchases I don't see how adding LAN mode would hurt, shoot I would even pay a few bucks to get that feature at that point. Just a thought, haven't seen anyone else mention it.
Depends on if the things you could buy with microtransactions would be ripped to that version but yea, LAN definitely should be a possibility if it goes F2P.
Oh god, again with the LAN... I thought we were done with this... I guess we will never be done with this...
This is a completely different concern than just complaining that there's no LAN. F2P would eliminate almost every concern they had when deciding to remove LAN...and you wouldn't have professional players dropping at major tournaments.
All that being said, it's really sad that people are so against the idea of paying for a game now that this is what the market is coming to.
I'm not against it, but when you think of real sports the most popular and widely played sports are those that need the least money to be involved in.
Soccer you need a ball. Played everywhere by everyone.
Hockey, or American Football: lots of gear, and special space to play it.
With SC2, most computers should be able to run it reasonably well nowadays. So most people have the tools. And then when the option is play SC2 and buy the game and all the expansions, or play LoL for free the choice is made for some people. The thing with LoL is you can spend whatever free cash you have whenever you want.
With SC2 you need to have a minimum of X dollars and invest them. So for some markets or groups the initial investment is a problem whereas the odd microtransaction isn't.
On September 25 2012 00:45 Souldrinkah wrote: There will be a ton of smurfers if Starcraft will be free to play.
And? It's not like that would ruin the game
You are right. People who like to constantly play dramatically uneven matches would really like this change.
They can go something similar to D2 route and have two separate ladders. Rather than be segregated by Open (local account storage) and Closed (Blizz servers), it would obviously be free SC2 and paid. This wouldn't change your ladder experience at all.
On September 25 2012 00:45 Souldrinkah wrote: There will be a ton of smurfers if Starcraft will be free to play.
And? It's not like that would ruin the game
You are right. People who like to constantly play dramatically uneven matches would really like this change.
I doubt people are going to make an account to play dramatically uneven matches.
You still need to lose or you will be promoted. So you could play 15 or so games on each account just to troll players?
I doubt most people would have the energy to do this.
Or they would just do as smurfs do now. You occasionally lose a game on purpose. With a F2P system, there would be more accounts and more reports. Blizzard's current track record at handling this type of stuff would indicate that you could do it for a while before you need to make another account.
On September 25 2012 00:45 Souldrinkah wrote: There will be a ton of smurfers if Starcraft will be free to play.
And? It's not like that would ruin the game
You are right. People who like to constantly play dramatically uneven matches would really like this change.
They can go something similar to D2 route and have two separate ladders. Rather than be segregated by Open (local account storage) and Closed (Blizz servers), it would obviously be free SC2 and paid. This wouldn't change your ladder experience at all.
I agree that this would be the best plan if they decide to go for a F2P model, but I suspect that the pay ladder would be much smaller than it is now.
Any discussion of custom/different unit skins is just a god awful idea. Maybe main base custom models/skins would be ok. For example i could buy a hatchery that looks differnet or a cc or a nexus, because these are the most impportant aspects of the game yet the least likey to adversely affect other players with confusing skin/animations.
Aside from that it seems quite simple, monitize custom maps. Paid name changes. Paid icons. Paid army banners. paid single player. Maybe paid access to indepth stats, maybe like a sc2gears report. Perhaps buy additional bonus pool, though i dont understnd how rankings work well enough to know if that could cause to dramatic of an inflaation or something.
Free to play: -can play multiplayer and get placed in leagues -has F2P tag in front of name -can play any melee map (new ones added onto the ladder can be played) -CANNOT play single player campaign, but can still do versus AI -CANNOT do any custom games, period. Only melee. (might have to ad unit preloader to default maps) -CANNOT make custom games or maps
Premium: everyone with a starcraft 2 account already has this. no changes.
I'm sure blizzard will get plenty of money from people wanting to play the campaign, screw around in a custom game, or try their hand at mapmaking. Not that they don't get plenty of money already from WoW.
Please, however. NO PAY TO WIN, NO MONTHLY FEES. I will hunt down and kill anyone who does that to starcraft 2
I see a big problem with maphackers/cheaters. Nowadays it would cost a hacker 50$/€ once he get banned. If the game is f2p, the hacker simply could make a new account.
Well I really don't care whether I'll end up paying 30 bucks or w/e hots will cost or pay 30 bucks to get all the features in hots. But f2p opens up the game to a wider player base, together with arcade this may bring in a lot of casuals, which is always a good thing so yeah sure why not, as long as it doesn't turn into pay to win... Btw I'm fairly sure AoE online is f2p and there is some f2p c&c or it's coming out, but since I don't care about either of those franchisees I'm not sure.
i support this idea 100%. free to play is the future, and this will make the community grow largly. I think this is what we need to compete with LoL over the biggest eSport
On September 25 2012 03:01 Fetchystick wrote: Okay, here's what needs to happen IMO:
Free to play: -can play multiplayer and get placed in leagues -has F2P tag in front of name -can play any melee map (new ones added onto the ladder can be played) -CANNOT play single player campaign, but can still do versus AI -CANNOT do any custom games, period. Only melee. (might have to ad unit preloader to default maps) -CANNOT make custom games or maps
Premium: everyone with a starcraft 2 account already has this. no changes.
I'm sure blizzard will get plenty of money from people wanting to play the campaign, screw around in a custom game, or try their hand at mapmaking. Not that they don't get plenty of money already from WoW.
Please, however. NO PAY TO WIN, NO MONTHLY FEES. I will hunt down and kill anyone who does that to starcraft 2
Why would you want the F2P tag in front of name? What practical purpose would that serve, and why would players benefit from having that kind of information in the game?
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
As for all the concerns with hacking and such, leauge of legends does a fine job wit its player reorting system which is moderated on a trial by peers/ vote thing. Its pretty ingenious and seems to work well, keeping griefers at a minmum and leavers as well
I don't know if it has already been mentioned but I think a "buy additional ladder slots" would be a good micro transaction. (Not only for the free 2 play model) It will basicly give you a new ladder slot with your MMR/points reset to Zero. This way, you could have like 3 slots for each race without having to make new accounts and you can keep your friend list/achievements. Maybe add a name change transaction/private option for each slot.
-Paid name changes -paid additional "Smurf" accounts -paid unit potraits and decals -custom decals and portraits (design your own for a small fee) -custom colors: customize your laddering color, add sparkle, shine and glow effects (subtle though) -clan logo's and overlays
Blizzard can host prize tournaments with small entrance fees with monetary rewards to the winner, bonus points for X/Y/Z and goodies for participants!
Player streaming within the battle.net client, players can follow certain players (blizzard gets a small portion)
Mapmakers can make trial and full versions of their maps, trials version are free for people to try, full versions can be bought for a reasonable price .99c each? and blizz takes a small cut for hosting the games.
For a fee SC2 teams can have their own dedciated team pages hosted in the battle.net service where the teams can get more exposure, talk to the community and host their own events, users won't have to minimize SC2 and open a web browser. Major tournaments could also benefit from their own dedicated pages/stream access within battle.net
list goes on
as for single player, I think breaking it up would be really beneficial for players who prefer to spend a lil here and there with spare change as opposed to buying everything in one go
ex:
players can spend say $1.79 a mission, $8.25 per "Act" (Act 1, Act 2, Act 3, Act 4 Final Act) or $40 for the 30 mission bundle
Yeah.. this won't happen any time soon. It's the part of the game with the biggest draw longevity wise, it makes them money and there's the ladder polution and pay to win concerns, to name but two. Unless they come up with an ingenious monetization model, this is the same as Sams saying they're not opposed to a F2P model for WoW. Even if it's a serious idea, considering the speed with which Blizzard implements such it's doubtful it would happen before we're well into LotV. And why would they until then?
Unsurprisingly that people just can't pay the 60 dollars to play a game that involved hundreds, if not thousands, of man hours to produce. If you like something, support something, shelling out 60 dollars is not a lot to ask. I'm sorry, as much as the Freeloaders of World United think that everything should just be handed to them, Blizzard is not a charity. They are a company that makes a product/service that people may or may not choose to purchase.
On the flip side, Blizzard can do what they want. Its their company and they make the rules for their games. (You don't like it, don't buy it/support it) If they want to make SC2 a F2P game, by all means go for it. But nothing in this world is free. Nothing. So they will continue to get their revenue somehow, somewhere, from someone. We just might be thanking the WoW community for footing the bill so that we can play. Who knows?
If name changes or realm switching are enough, hell even bells and whistles like portraits or skins or whatever extra content works, then great! But what happens if its not enough? Like any new product there is a surge, and then growth slows down, and then proceeds the decline. Stability can be hard to find and define. But I digress.
TL:DR I'm sure Blizzard will come up with a solution to this non-existent problem. And in the end, no matter what happens there is always going to be that small group of people that cannot be pleased.
Edit: Limiting options have never worked and only have suppressed the game's community growth. If people can't afford to out right have a computer, play SC2, have internet (preferably broadband) why would they want to buy "half a game" to only have to pay for services that other games inherently give out for free. i.e. Chat, friends lists, music, sound, etc...
On September 25 2012 04:58 MrBitter wrote: There are sooo many ways to make a micro transaction model work within SC2.
Selling unit models is the one I'd visit first.
Imagine if a cute, pug skin for your zerglings.
Or instead of banelings, you could make beach balls.
BW themed Protoss skins like the carrier?
Yeah I'm not quite convinced...
SC2 is already really complicated compared to most games on the market. Even in WoL, there's a moment of "What the fuck is THAT!?" every time I run into a collector's edition Thor. Mostly I'm confused that they're building Thors at all because I play Protoss, but I feel like it's really, really important for the player to be able to instantly identify anything on the field at a glance. If people have to stare at your army for a moment to decipher all the crazy skins you're using, that's a big problem.
I don't have a problem with F2P in general, but since there's no way anything that actually gives you an in-game advantage can be allowed, and skins are potentially confusing, I really have no idea how they can make their money. Profile pictures? Custom maps/games? I can't see them getting a steady stream of income from either of those.
On September 25 2012 04:58 MrBitter wrote: There are sooo many ways to make a micro transaction model work within SC2.
Selling unit models is the one I'd visit first.
Imagine if a cute, pug skin for your zerglings.
Or instead of banelings, you could make beach balls.
BW themed Protoss skins like the carrier?
Yeah I'm not quite convinced...
SC2 is already really complicated compared to most games on the market. Even in WoL, there's a moment of "What the fuck is THAT!?" every time I run into a collector's edition Thor. Mostly I'm confused that they're building Thors at all because I play Protoss, but I feel like it's really, really important for the player to be able to instantly identify anything on the field at a glance. If people have to stare at your army for a moment to decipher all the crazy skins you're using, that's a big problem.
I don't have a problem with F2P in general, but since there's no way anything that actually gives you an in-game advantage can be allowed, and skins are potentially confusing, I really have no idea how they can make their money. Profile pictures? Custom maps/games? I can't see them getting a steady stream of income from either of those.
Yea I'm not so sure on cosmetic re-skins of units either...
One potential avenue I think might work is with the in-game unit 3D portraits. If people on Dota 2 spend money just to change the equipment for say Axe, there's a good chance people will pay for Raynor marines, Zeratul DTs, etc.
Heroes of Newerth did a thing with announcer packs so I supposed custom adjutants/executors/overminds(?) can be created for those who like that.
I'd say the most obvious thing to me that they could monetize is portraits and the decals.
There are already people that farm for portraits, so why not make new ones that people can buy? They've already added promo ones from blizzcons, etc. Same goes for the decals on your buildings in game, they wouldn't be nearly as intrusive as new unit models too. Also paid name changes.
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.
On September 23 2012 13:14 Fyodor wrote: Starcraft 2: Premium
$9.99/month gets you:
-Matchup/Map stats. I already have this on an excel spreedsheet, and all I need to do is increase the number by 1 every win/loss after I spent 10 minutes making it. -get to see your real MMR and promotion thresholds. This doesn't actually do anything whatsoever. -Tournament map pool in ladder. "Tournament maps" vary, do you want GSL map pool? the vast majority of the maps are already in there, and it doesn't make sense to introduce new maps in the middle of a season. -unit customization. What exactly do you want with this? stuff like CE Thors? -Ladder priority. If you mean quicker queues, this is completely irrelevent for 1v1, I never sit in a queue for longer than a minute, and mostly around 10 seconds. -access to Arcade/UMS. This is a good one I would say. -access to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, FFA. Could work aswell I guess, but I doubt that people will pick SC2 up purely to ladder, they would want to play with their friends in multiplayer games. -Obligatory WoW pet. This makes no sense, but I guess a different icon or skin in LoL doesn't either. -Sign up for a year and get one season pass of GSL/OSL. This requires blizzard to pay the tickets anyway, so basicly you get 1 season slightly cheaper, but you pay Blizz instead of GOMTV, who then pays GOMTV. -If you are an existing WoW subscriber, you get Starcraft 2 Premium for free or at a discount. I guess...
Existing retail customers get discounted premium at $9.99/year.
**Legacy players keep everything they already have. God... people.
Also, there is a MASSIVE difference between subscriptions/F2P
WoW is F2P, but only up to level 20 and you can maximum have 10 gold.
And if they ever put in a subscription fee for SC2, I would never pay for it, as I don't play it all the time, and whenever I would feel like playing, I just wouldn't want to pay as I might not play enough for me to feel its worth it.
The only way I can see an RTS going F2P is if it stops being an esport and they can start selling units and such.
On September 23 2012 12:45 Niriw wrote: -Buy unlimited access to arcade an unlimited ladder games (maybe limited to 3-5 games a day of both arcade and ladder) -All options and customizations unlocked (Options menu: graphics, hotkeys, sound, etc)
And I could go on forever
These are bad ideas.
1) No (successful) F2P game limits playtime by charging, the whole point is that it gets you to play a lot for free so that you buy other shit.
2) ...what? Nobody's gonna pay to up their graphics settings or turn off in-game music, that's just gonna piss people off.
They can sell skins, that's pretty much it. If you charge people to use, say, broodlords, the game just sucks for anyone who doesn't pay, and you also run into the issue of "has my opponent bought xx?"
that said I would absolutely buy skins for all my units that'd be kickass
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
You have to pay to play more than 5 games a day? Are you fucking retarded? How would any of the pros practice the game? Is someone going to provide them a per-diem just to practice the game?!?!?
Priority on the match queue? Is waiting 20 seconds really that bad? LOLL
Pay to have SOUND? I imagine the signal to your monitor would be an extra surcharge???
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
I won't even address the other ideas because they are so stupid my brain can't even comprehend or imagine something that blantantly stupid.
Edit: Just thought of a wayy better idea. We should charge people $1 per character in their username and another $1 per character in their password!! DATA STORAGE AINT FREE YO!!!
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..
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~~
Is it possible to have something like the anti hack program that ICCup used to protect against hacks? Because if thfree game becomes e to play then I fear that the amount of hackers would absolutely destroy the experience of the ladder. I know something like that dosnt exist now for sc2 but in the future Im sure something like that is possible.
On September 25 2012 04:58 MrBitter wrote: There are sooo many ways to make a micro transaction model work within SC2.
Selling unit models is the one I'd visit first.
Imagine if a cute, pug skin for your zerglings.
Or instead of banelings, you could make beach balls.
BW themed Protoss skins like the carrier?
I think you can take this farther:
Dog theme zerg: all units have collars (ultra hehe), even the command card and overlay look different, with doggie treats and unit abilities renamed like lair-level overlord has "spew dookie" ability, changeling is renamed "mimic dog" etc etc
beach theme zerg: for HOTS viper, blinding cloud is now named "Sunglasses for opponent" or something :D maybe reskin the ultra as a huge red ground lobster! or queen has a sundress on. hmmmm overlords spawn with stupid looking brightly coloured visors :D hydra is renamed "unimpressed tourist who spits" xD and has a tourist pouch on xD
On September 25 2012 04:44 PauseBreak wrote: Unsurprisingly that people just can't pay the 60 dollars to play a game that involved hundreds, if not thousands, of man hours to produce. If you like something, support something, shelling out 60 dollars is not a lot to ask. I'm sorry, as much as the Freeloaders of World United think that everything should just be handed to them, Blizzard is not a charity. They are a company that makes a product/service that people may or may not choose to purchase.
On the flip side, Blizzard can do what they want. Its their company and they make the rules for their games. (You don't like it, don't buy it/support it) If they want to make SC2 a F2P game, by all means go for it. But nothing in this world is free. Nothing. So they will continue to get their revenue somehow, somewhere, from someone. We just might be thanking the WoW community for footing the bill so that we can play. Who knows?
If name changes or realm switching are enough, hell even bells and whistles like portraits or skins or whatever extra content works, then great! But what happens if its not enough? Like any new product there is a surge, and then growth slows down, and then proceeds the decline. Stability can be hard to find and define. But I digress.
TL:DR I'm sure Blizzard will come up with a solution to this non-existent problem. And in the end, no matter what happens there is always going to be that small group of people that cannot be pleased.
Edit: Limiting options have never worked and only have suppressed the game's community growth. If people can't afford to out right have a computer, play SC2, have internet (preferably broadband) why would they want to buy "half a game" to only have to pay for services that other games inherently give out for free. i.e. Chat, friends lists, music, sound, etc...
Even though the free to play model has proven to be insanely lucrative? You sound like blizz would be getting cheated out of cash.
But what happens if its not enough? Like any new product there is a surge, and then growth slows down, and then proceeds the decline. Stability can be hard to find and define. But I digress.
This is also true with the present model; relatively few people are actually picking up new copies, which means blizzard income from retail sales is in rapid decline and the maintenance of the game is still pretty demanding. Sure, there will be cash surges with expansions, but then again Browder said free to play probably wouldn't happen until after lotv.
The idea isn't "sc2 should be free so I don't have to cough up $60", it's "If sc2 is free to play you get way more exposure for potential new players." If sc2's community numbers weren't completely overshadowed by (free to play) moba games, then we probably wouldn't be talking about this.
This isn't a full F2P suggestion, but I believe it's a simple way to test the waters: Make HotS single player and multiplayer separate purchases for half price each, while still offering the full version. Naturally, multiplayer would include a demo of single player (3-5 missions, maybe including one of the "arcs," like Tosh's--it would be nice to get the full mini-story, and Tosh's was particularly satisfying (Sorry Nova </3)).
A WoL bundle or "battle chest," as they like to call them, would also be helpful, although I'd be hesitant to offer a full WoL with only half of HotS. I can already imagine the confusion when someone realizes they picked up the wrong copy or thought they were getting full versions of both WoL and HotS. A bundle with full versions of both might be smartest, at least when buying the box. Online, people can hopefully read all the disclaimers and warnings like "Warning, you are purchasing the full version of Wings of Liberty and the multiplayer only for Heart of the Swarm."
I really wouldn't mind multiplayer being free to play then paying a small monthly fee for detailed stats, clans, replay packs, challenge missions etc. Also wouldn't mind paying for in game colors and skins. Opening the game up is a good thing.
On September 25 2012 13:49 Prime Directive wrote: I really wouldn't mind multiplayer being free to play then paying a small monthly fee for detailed stats, clans, replay packs, challenge missions etc. Also wouldn't mind paying for in game colors and skins. Opening the game up is a good thing.
I'm afraid that you would end up paying way over 60$ for something we should have access to right now.
On September 25 2012 13:49 Prime Directive wrote: I really wouldn't mind multiplayer being free to play then paying a small monthly fee for detailed stats, clans, replay packs, challenge missions etc. Also wouldn't mind paying for in game colors and skins. Opening the game up is a good thing.
I'm afraid that you would end up paying way over 60$ for something we should have access to right now.
who says that we should have access to anything? any kind of service that we get between expansions is for free. you might not know this but this is very uncommon in the gaming industry.
i personally wouldn't mind payn an amount of money per year for some premium features/content that would justify the work of others if its fair. but its never gonna happen which is sad.
On September 25 2012 13:49 Prime Directive wrote: I really wouldn't mind multiplayer being free to play then paying a small monthly fee for detailed stats, clans, replay packs, challenge missions etc. Also wouldn't mind paying for in game colors and skins. Opening the game up is a good thing.
I'm afraid that you would end up paying way over 60$ for something we should have access to right now.
who says that we should have access to anything? any kind of service that we get between expansions is for free. you might not know this but this is very uncommon in the gaming industry.
i personally wouldn't mind payn an amount of money per year for some premium features/content that would justify the work of others if its fair. but its never gonna happen which is sad.
I think that we should have an option to either buy a game like right now OR f2p with micro-transactions.
In order to monetize it, can't Blizzard just simply add in-game advertisements? Also micro-transactions for like super Thor or super Colossus or Brood Lord or something. Blizzard can find a way.
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...
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.
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.
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 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 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
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 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.
Because if the game is free to play there is absolutely nothing Blizzard can do about cheaters. Banning accounts is pointless if you can just make a new one for free.
The fact that Blizzard doesn't always publicize their efforts on banning cheaters doesn't mean that they're not doing anything.
I see no benefits of going F2P. Better that they raise the price of the game than going F2P.
How will this effect people who have already purchased the game is what I want to know?
I'm not a fan of the F2P idea and definitely not a fan of paying £40 for a game that then becomes free! I'm sure they will address this properly if it ever comes about but would it be interesting to see what people think will happen.
I think if they want to try out this model they should put Warcraft 3 TFT multiplayer out there first as free to play and gauge it from there. Would be a fun experiment.
Blizzard will make the multiplayer ladder free to play if they feel it will increase viewers for the tournaments. More viewers means more money at the tournaments which means blizzard is getting more from their cut of the tournament money.
More hackers is a non issue as there are already hackers in this game. There will be more, but there is not much you can do about it. Blizzard does a decent job at attempting to keep hackers out. It's shitty that they do it in waves, but it helps cover up how they figure out who is hacking.
They can make money off of popular custom maps, the campaign, name changes, and potentially portraits. If they really want the game to be the best eSport it could be there are definitely features that should be added. The ability to add team logos, which also means there is a spot for teams to put their sponsors. We're still waiting for the ability to rejoin games that you get disconnected from. This doesn't need to be on the ladder necessarily, but it should be an option for custom games.
Blizzard probably won't make it free to play unless there is some sort of serious competition from another RTS out there. I don't think there is another one that comes close that is on the horizon.
Would people be opposed to skins,etc... for only 3v3 and 4v4? I feel like free 3v3/4v4 would attract people who aren't interested enough in paying the sticker price for the game. Blizzard can mess it up with skins, etc... as much as they want, and it doesn't hurt the pro-scene or competitive 1v1 ladder at all.
Of course, Blizzard would probably have to do some coding work to get 3v3/4v4 to run a different version of Sc2, but it may be worth it if the F2P model is so lucrative.
SC2 really needs to be F2P to gain further success. alot of my friends say that if they buy sc2, they will feel pressured to play otherwise its just a wasted 60USD, as opposed to just playing a game such as dota 2 where they can just play or not play in a months and not feel like they 'need' to play at all.
I'm kind of indifferent about the whole thing. I would hope they offer both simultaneously if possible b/c I would buy the copy to avoid ads. If it helps gain wider adoption then sure.
On September 27 2012 13:44 CyDe wrote: It'd be cool if they had LAN in some way if they did this. Maybe that's what you had to pay for. I don't know. I just want fucking LAN.
LAN and f2p are basically polar opposites. The fact that the game becomes free to play makes it so that the creator of the game wants even MORE control, not less. Otherwise they wouldn't make any money.
On September 25 2012 04:58 MrBitter wrote: There are sooo many ways to make a micro transaction model work within SC2.
Selling unit models is the one I'd visit first.
Imagine if a cute, pug skin for your zerglings.
Or instead of banelings, you could make beach balls.
BW themed Protoss skins like the carrier?
Yeah I'm not quite convinced...
SC2 is already really complicated compared to most games on the market. Even in WoL, there's a moment of "What the fuck is THAT!?" every time I run into a collector's edition Thor. Mostly I'm confused that they're building Thors at all because I play Protoss, but I feel like it's really, really important for the player to be able to instantly identify anything on the field at a glance. If people have to stare at your army for a moment to decipher all the crazy skins you're using, that's a big problem.
I don't have a problem with F2P in general, but since there's no way anything that actually gives you an in-game advantage can be allowed, and skins are potentially confusing, I really have no idea how they can make their money. Profile pictures? Custom maps/games? I can't see them getting a steady stream of income from either of those.
There are 91 heroes currently in DOTA 2. No one has any real problem distinguishing heroes at a glance. Nor summons, or neutrals, or lane creeps etc etc. There are WAY more things to get mixed up with in DOTA, but it's still just not a problem.
The way you pull it off is that you have a base model, and then parts of it can be changed.
Let me ask you this. When you have a DT next to a cloaked zealot, can you immediately distinguish them? for 99.9999% of people, I'd imagine they can. A DT is always an invisible protoss with some sort of cape. It'd look a LOT like a zealot if not for the cape. But the cape makes a very big difference - it's a cue you can spot INSTANTLY to distinguish them. They even have different possible blades. But all you need to see is the cape and psi blade of any kind and you can say "Yep that's a DT."
Likewise, a reaper will always have two guns and a jetpack - no other unit that size has those highly recognizable features. And a roach? It's got a big, boxy body with small scuttling legs out to the side and some spines on top with two claws. Now what if the reaper carried a pair of revolvers instead of its current pistols? Or had an uncovered head? Or what if a roach had slightly different looking spines, or had the claws on the top of its body be two pairs of pincers instead of two big blades? Even with those changes, there's still nothing else they could possibly be but reapers or roaches.
Why does this thread even exist ? What are the benefits? Any people familiar with Heroes of Newerth will know that most players that bought their account never accepted free-to-players and I don't think it would be a success here either ..
here's a f2p model. everyone gets one "character" (like in wc3), but can buy as many additional chars as he wants. so you can have a char for playing each race, a char for cheesing, etc etc (basically a feature that should have been in there all the time).
i'd love to see sc2 go f2p, however they do it. it would make the player number skyrocket. improve stream promotion like LoL does and we might see a huge increase in specators. great move )
On September 27 2012 23:48 Leru wrote: Why does this thread even exist ? What are the benefits?
The benefits would be making the entry cost lower (free in this case) would help grow the fanbase. For example, think about the most popular spectator sport world wide: soccer. It probably has the lowest entry cost of any sport, since all you really need is a ball to kick around. As you increase the cost of entry by adding specialized equipment (games like baseball, golf, etc), the smaller the potential viewer base becomes.
Sports like auto racing might appear to be an exception to this trend. But I'm betting auto racing is really only popular in countries where a good percentage of the population drives. You can drive an old, beat up clunker and still feel like you have a frame of reference for following auto racing.
Don't like this at all, since I'm totally opposed to that business model... Games should be sold for a certain price and so enable the players/customers to enjoy every single aspect the game includes instead of micro paynents for often better content... Hope blizz changea their mind about this as I consider them a kind-of "traditional" company in the scene.
On September 28 2012 01:52 Creager wrote: Don't like this at all, since I'm totally opposed to that business model... Games should be sold for a certain price and so enable the players/customers to enjoy every single aspect the game includes instead of micro paynents for often better content... Hope blizz changea their mind about this as I consider them a kind-of "traditional" company in the scene.
The issue is with the model is that it is getting harder and harder to support games post launch for as long as the community expects. Patchings, updating and refining the game takes money at time and it is diffcult to justify doing that when all the money for the game is given up front. LoL and Dota 2 are so well supported because they receive money from the players over time, so it is easy to justify supporting that game over a period of time.
Or to put it this way, so you see multiplayer for SC2 as a service or a product you buy one time? Would you like it to be a service that is ongoing? F2P allows developers to treat games more like a service without charging a monthly fee, which allows for better support without having to work on a new expansion to justify spending the money.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://soshable.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg)
