|
On May 28 2013 00:31 eScaper-tsunami wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 22:30 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:As usual I appreciate any sort of insight from you directly from Korea, but if I understand you correctly then as far as I know the information you're basing this on isn't accurate. If the pc bang owners just needed to purchase the full game it wouldn't have been as big of an issue upon the launch of WoL. Usually the games get thousands of hours of playtime and the hourly cost is extremely low in that case. However For WoL Blizzard introduced a set cost per hour played. This set cost per hour is many times more expensive than buying a new game and just using that for years. This has been quoted as the reason for why the Korean pc bangs didn't promote SC2 much at all. If a game is played 3000 hours over the course of three years that costs $600 instead of $50. I completely agree with your explanation of why team games are so successful. People just love to blame others for their mistakes and it is so relaxing and rewarding to do so. The viewing to playing ratio of SC2 still blows any other game out of the water. It's an amazing spectator sport, but sometimes people find it stressful to play. I don't see why Blizzard can't transition SC2 to free to play for custom games in the immediate future to accommodate some of the issues in Korea and and eventually free to play completely and go into a micro-transaction model. As to the team game aspect. SC2 could have and should have featured 2v2 and 3v3 in the Open GSL right off the bat. 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 can co-exist but Blizzard chose to promote 1v1 only because it was easier for them. It's quite a big blunder in their marketing. They essentially undersold themselves. I understand people will be concerned about balance and etc but that's Blizzard responsibility as the developer to tackle these challenges and it seems like they either didn't care for it or didn't have the balls or possibly both.
I kinda agree. While I think the best competition is 1v1, I would have liked to have 2v2 tournaments organised by blizzard, so they are forced to do a goddamn decent mappool. Because right now, as nobody is playing 2v2 competitively in tournaments, mapmakers don't even really know the "imbalanced features" of a 2v2 map. And how can you fix sth you don't even know it's broken ?
In 1v1 map there's a "if you can wall the bottom of a ramp, it's imalanced". Mapmakers put a neutral supply depolt on every single map and we moved on. Nobody disscuss this anymore, but it have effectively killed stupid cheeses that have no place in the game.
But in 2v2 we don't really know the right ramp size, rush distance and so so every race composition have a chance to reach the midgame, and not 80% of the games begins by silly rush strategies, GSL open seaosons style.
|
Great video, good perspective on changes in the gaming base in SK.
|
I totally agree with Khaldor, but one can not deny that differences between BW and SC2 as games are also factors. The style of battles and micro is vastly different between the two games, and for those that are used to small skirmishes in BW, it can be difficult to see the appeal of SC2 from a glance (especially if they happen to see deathball vs deathball ending in 10 seconds into gg, as was a large amount of WoL).
The mechanical difficulty of BW is both a challenge and a draw for the game. Because it is so difficult to control units (stupid AI, whatnot), some actions can be considered amazing. Yet, to others (i.e. some of the SC2 community), 12 unit control groups, crappy pathing, and dumbcasting are very daunting. Despite all of this, BW would never be BW without all of these things.
Basically, it is just a different draw for two very different games. Sure, the factors that Khaldor brought up at 100% true and contribute greatly to the level of popularity of SC2 in Korea, but once people are used to a certain style of a game, it can be difficult to like something different.
If I had to say, players that love to play BW love it largely for its mechanical challenge (or to put it in a slightly different way: it is difficult to like to *play* BW without enjoying the mechanical challenge of it). SC2 pales in comparison in that aspect, but whether or not the strategical aspect of SC2 compensates for that, that is debatable and on an individual basis.
(Just a note, I understand the differences between the games and their respective appeals. I love both games. I want BW to live forever and SC2 to grow. Maybe that is impossible, but I can dream ><)
|
Really good video Khaldor. Agree with everything you said.
It makes you wonder why Blizzard didn't focus on the team game side of sc2 a little bit more with HoTS though.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 27 2013 21:34 Andr3 wrote:
Great video.
What stuck the most in my head is the bit where you compared team games to 1vs1.
I've been only playing DotA the past few months and it's so much easier to blame your team than yourself. When you lose in SC it's all your fault.
I think that deters a lot of people from actually playing SC2. I'm pretty sure the balance between people that play SC2 and people that watch it is heavily shifted towards the latter.
I would say the majority of those who blame their team for their loss (if they played sc2) would be those that blame imbalance for their loss.
|
So do we have any way of knowing/assessing the actual viewership levels in Korea at this time for SC2? Some questions I'm really curious to see speculated/answered:
1. Is there stronger viewership for HoTs than WoL?
2. Will the WCS Season 1 finals draw a sufficient crowd to fill the stadium?
3. Is the Korean following strong enough to prop up Pro league and GSL without significant Blizzard support?
4. Will the game continue to be shown on TV or are we going to see it fall off soon (is the audience in Korea increasing like the foreign scene or actually decreasing gradually)?
|
The gaming community in Korea is the same as my country. There are also a lot of internet cafes here. People here in Thailand just don't buy video game. SC2 price in thailand is considered to be ridiculuosly expensive here. My friend asked me if I really bought a game for 2500 bath. He said I am insane.
|
On May 27 2013 22:10 TaShadan wrote:
Broodwar was/is a 1on1 game too. So how do you explain it beeing more popular than any other game?
He explained how whatever games are popular in the PC Bangs happen to be what's popular main stream. In the case of BW it was insanely popular in PC Bangs, no team games were as popular at the time. So naturally BW was stupidly popular in Korea.
Honestly if SC2 were/was 100% free to use in PC Bangs you'd of probably seen the BW popularity transfer over much better. Whether or not blizzard would of agreed that is good (obviously they didn't) is a different question.
If blizzard wants to survive in this brave new world of gaming they need to figure out how to make the F2P system work within their games to generate revenue. It's the trend and direction everything is starting to go world wide. It's not universal yet but it's entirely plausible that you'll see it become universal that micro transactions on top studio created games will become better revenue draws then standard pay get everything for one price games.
|
Do you guys, as customers, really want microtransactions in your games? It always leaves me with the feeling that you either do not get all features you need to succeed (= risk of p2w) or in the case of cosmetic or 'social' features it leads to the game acting like a dealer, trying to peer pressure you into stuff you don't need or making addicts out of certain persons. Despite this, RTS traditionally have a big problem with microtransactions (AOE online, C&C etc) because there just isn't as much identification with your units/armies as there is with the hero in MMOs and Mobas. So even if they introduced a microtransaction based business model, I doubt it would be profitable for them.
As you might have guessed, I dislike f2p, and I personally hope it doesn't actually become the standard for big studios. I want high quality games for which I'm willing to pay one time an amount worth of the work put into creating the game and then get a complete package, without having the feeling of incompleteness or the game behaving like an annoying peddler, constantly trying to talk me into buying its stuff.
|
Good stuff Khaldor, pretty much confirms what all the intelligent folk have been saying on this issue. Question is should blizard be looking for that Free2P multiplayer and sell funny hats for our marines and purple lightsabres for our DT's. I personally think the team game blame mechanics you discussed are too strong, just look at the number of old school BW fans move towards DotA2, hell TL itself has moved towards DotA2 which a tiny bit more micro aside isn't all that different to LoL at the end of the day.
I'm not much of a team game guy myself, never will be, I hate it when things aren't within my control, I'd much rather lose because of me than because of someone else.
On a side note, looks like there's certainly no racism from the locals in that cafe!
Work those shoulders biceps are getting disproportionate! (maybe it's just me being a rock climber, we only come in triangular)
-edit
On May 28 2013 02:33 ACrow wrote:
Do you guys, as customers, really want microtransactions in your games? It always leaves me with the feeling that you either do not get all features you need to succeed (= risk of p2w) or in the case of cosmetic or 'social' features it leads to the game acting like a dealer, trying to peer pressure you into stuff you don't need or making addicts out of certain persons.
Well the WoW income that made blizzard fat was entirely based on that collection addiction mechanic. I don't think anyone is suggesting p2w. Cosmetics are fine, its a way of showing support, I think most of us can either resist or make a conscious choice not to.
|
Great video, I think another factor is the skill cap of these games. I am sure some people will disagree but I think the skill cap for Starcraft is so much higher if not almost uncapped, where as in a game like LoL there is only so much you can do with 1 hero and a few spells. People like being able t get good fast.
Edit: also on the microtransactions comments, microtransaction will the reason I stop gaming if everything goes that rout.
|
I am still waiting to have at least one small part of a major tournament showcase some team matches in sc2.
|
On May 28 2013 02:33 ACrow wrote:
or in the case of cosmetic or 'social' features it leads to the game acting like a dealer, trying to peer pressure you into stuff you don't need or making addicts out of certain persons.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but people can get addicted to pretty much anything. In fact most addictions are in fact an addiction to certain chemical substances being released in their brain, rather than the more tangible product, thing or activity we would normally associate said addiction with. From drugs, to medicine, to sex, food, consuming entertainment or playing video games, any of these can cause addiction if they light up the subject's reward circuitry and he/she doesn't have that much self-control.
Oh and if someone gets addicted to a F2P game, I would wager they probably have more serious problems with their lives than this visible issue. ;p
|
khaldor what is your personal opinion on dota2's chances of being successful when it enters the korean market? do you think the free to play nature of the game will attract players, or do you think the game being similar to LoL will make players just stay with LoL
|
Thank you Khaldor!
On May 28 2013 03:12 evilfatsh1t wrote:
khaldor what is your personal opinion on dota2's chances of being successful when it enters the korean market? do you think the free to play nature of the game will attract players, or do you think the game being similar to LoL will make players just stay with LoL Wasn't WC3 DotA somewhat popular in korea before DOTA2?
On May 27 2013 22:10 TaShadan wrote:
Broodwar was/is a 1on1 game too. So how do you explain it beeing more popular than any other game?
Because according to Day9 (IIRC), BW was popular in PC-bangs mostly because of 2v2 Big Game Hunters (a fun melee custom map).
|
On May 28 2013 02:33 ACrow wrote:
Do you guys, as customers, really want microtransactions in your games? It always leaves me with the feeling that you either do not get all features you need to succeed (= risk of p2w) or in the case of cosmetic or 'social' features it leads to the game acting like a dealer, trying to peer pressure you into stuff you don't need or making addicts out of certain persons. Despite this, RTS traditionally have a big problem with microtransactions (AOE online, C&C etc) because there just isn't as much identification with your units/armies as their is with the hero in MMOs and Mobas. So even if they introduced a microtransaction based business model, I doubt it would be profitable for them.
As you might have guessed, I dislike f2p, and I personally hope it doesn't actually become the standard for big studios. I want high quality games for which I'm willing to pay one time an amount worth of the work put into creating the game and then get a complete package, without having the feeling of incompleteness or the game behaving like an annoying peddler, constantly trying to talk me into buying its stuff.
Blizzard is already making new models and animation, IMO that's already a sign they are planning for a transition. In the long run, a microtransaction model is more sustainable IF it works.
There are a lot of things Blizzard and RTS developers can do. From unique unit models, to effects and animation that's actually a lot already for them to milk. And these things certainly appeal to people, just look at LoL and Dota2. Although I don't have the statistics to back it up, I'd like to believe these unique skins appeal to female gamers more. It may not appeal to people like me and you but this may be a necessary step to bring in fresh blood to the SC2 community which is vital for growth. Unless having unique models and effect would drive current players away, I really don't see how the extra appeal can hurt the game or the community.
Or this could be simply Blizzard's evil plan. Get loyal niche hardcore followers to buy the first 2 expansions and suddenly turn the 3rd installment to be free to play. Boom, 2 bird with one stone.
If a game is made of terrible quality, it better be f2p but that doesn't mean a well-made, thought out game can't be f2p and still be profitable through microtransaction.
|
So blizzard should worry about balancing team games? im not playing team games but i hear that the maps for team games are mostly atrocious to play on and very rush favored.
|
Great video, Khaldor!
And to the other posters, I'm going to have to disagree that BW in its prime was a "1v1 game" with its ultra hard mechanics being the main draw. I'll agree that watching progamers beat out the UI was an amazing spectacle, I'm hugely doubtful that most of the playerbase strove to be like them and be ultra competitive.
The "BW prime" for the players that I remember was a list of TvB games of "3v3 BGH pros only nr20 gogogo!" It was the scrubbiest @#$% ever, but it was the most popular game type and those games ALWAYS filled in under a minute. And when you won, it was because you were a badass, and when you lost, it was always because you had an ally who sucked/spawned in the corner and got rushed. And it was fun as hell either way. I'd always imagine all those years ago, most Koreans who went to the PC bang played mostly team games with each other.
|
On May 28 2013 03:15 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
So blizzard should worry about balancing team games? im not playing team games but i hear that the maps for team games are mostly atrocious to play on and very rush favored. Blizzard has done things in the past to balance team games in Starcraft 2.
|
On May 28 2013 03:17 cocosoft wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2013 03:15 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
So blizzard should worry about balancing team games? im not playing team games but i hear that the maps for team games are mostly atrocious to play on and very rush favored. Blizzard has done things in the past to balance team games in Starcraft 2.
did it work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
