|
On July 31 2014 23:57 Noro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 23:47 Hider wrote:On July 31 2014 23:38 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 31 2014 18:27 Zealously wrote:On July 31 2014 18:23 MajorBiscuit wrote:On July 31 2014 18:19 Faust852 wrote:
One step closer to F2P, always a good thing. Why is F2P considered such a good thing in the community is completely beyond me. It is very hard to pull a succesful not pay-to-win F2P model. Only Valve has pulled it off, and they had the infastructure (Steam) ready for a very long time to make this viable. Even if Dota 2 didn't make a profit, attracting more people to Steam will always be beneficial to them. LoL has definitely made it work, and I think LoL's success is what most people are looking at. Also Blizzard's Hearthstone Starcraft's value is in the single player campaigns which is why the game is not F2P (also it mostly predates the F2P model) but I could see Blizzard offering up multiplayer SC2 as a F2P option with purchasable skins and hats. I wouldn't be offended by that. Personally I'm not the market for it as I don't give a !@#$%^&* about hats, but clearly a lot of gamers like that sort of thing. This won't be done for 3 reasons; 1) Blizzard still wants to earn money through selling LOTV. So they can't make it F2p before that. 2) You can't just relaunch an old product as a F2P and expect it to be popular. Starcraft has already been positioned as a "has"-been product. It would be very expensive to try to reposition Starcraft and the gains would be debateable. 3) The 1on1 game isn't casual-friendly. It would need a completley new model in order satifiy the needs of the casuals. Unfortunately, casual Starcraft bascially died with the fail of the arcade. And F2P arcade never really made a big impact even though casuals would have been a ton more likely to prefer the arcade over the 1on1. But casuals today are just much more interested in other games than Starcraft My point is that the whole idea that we can just solve Starcraft's issue through changes to the business model is just wish-thinking. We all want to see it happen, but in reality we have to accept that Starcraft will continue to decline regardless of what is being done. Is Starcraft's player base declining? Source? Obviously it's not as big as it was when it originally launched, or even as big as when HotS launched, but I still get games as fast as I ever have and there seems to be a lot of active players still on each server.
Yeah, sc2 is still huge and number aren't decline for a while now. There are even more players this season than the last one.
|
On July 31 2014 23:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 23:38 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 31 2014 18:27 Zealously wrote:On July 31 2014 18:23 MajorBiscuit wrote:On July 31 2014 18:19 Faust852 wrote:
One step closer to F2P, always a good thing. Why is F2P considered such a good thing in the community is completely beyond me. It is very hard to pull a succesful not pay-to-win F2P model. Only Valve has pulled it off, and they had the infastructure (Steam) ready for a very long time to make this viable. Even if Dota 2 didn't make a profit, attracting more people to Steam will always be beneficial to them. LoL has definitely made it work, and I think LoL's success is what most people are looking at. Also Blizzard's Hearthstone Starcraft's value is in the single player campaigns which is why the game is not F2P (also it mostly predates the F2P model) but I could see Blizzard offering up multiplayer SC2 as a F2P option with purchasable skins and hats. I wouldn't be offended by that. Personally I'm not the market for it as I don't give a !@#$%^&* about hats, but clearly a lot of gamers like that sort of thing. This won't be done for 3 reasons; 1) Blizzard still wants to earn money through selling LOTV. So they can't make it F2p before that. 2) You can't just relaunch an old product as a F2P and expect it to be popular. Starcraft has already been positioned as a "has"-been product. It would be very expensive to try to reposition Starcraft and the gains would be debateable. 3) The 1on1 game isn't casual-friendly. It would need a completley new model in order satifiy the needs of the casuals. Unfortunately, casual Starcraft bascially died with the fail of the arcade. And F2P arcade never really made a big impact even though casuals would have been a ton more likely to prefer the arcade over the 1on1. But casuals today are just much more interested in other games than Starcraft My point is that the whole idea that we can just solve Starcraft's issue through changes to the business model is just wish-thinking. We all want to see it happen, but in reality we have to accept that Starcraft will continue to decline regardless of what is being done.
1)They could wait ~6-12 months after LoTV's release before pulling the trigger on F2P
2)Positioned by who? Yes, Blizzard would have to spend several million dollars marketing what is essentially a new product and it might end up being a money loser, but Blizzard can afford the risk and the potential gains are certainly worth it. After LoTV has been released and is mostly done selling Blizzard has to spend money supporting the game while revenue essentially ceases. Why wouldn't they want to consider F2P?
3) Why is a completely new model out of the question? We've already established that converting SC2 to F2P isn't free. Several million dollars updating the game for the F2P would be a necessary cost.
Maybe Blizzard will calculate that developing a new expansion after LoTV or getting to work on SC3 is a better use of their resources, but I guarantee F2P has not yet been ruled out as an option even if it's just a kind of pilot program for a F2P SC3
|
1)They could wait ~6-12 months after LoTV's release before pulling the trigger on F2P
Anything less than 12 months could be a PR-disaster (as Blizzard will be considered greedy/people who just bought the game will feel cheated).. Anything above that, and Starcraft LOTV will be even furthter down in the product life cycle w/ a lower playbase. Turning a game around that is already declining isn't easy.
2)Positioned by who? Yes, Blizzard would have to spend several million dollars marketing what is essentially a new product and it might end up being a money loser, but Blizzard can afford the risk and the potential gains are certainly worth it. After LoTV has been released and is mostly done selling Blizzard has to spend money supporting the game while revenue essentially ceases. Why wouldn't they want to consider F2P?
Postioned = How consumers/gamers in general view Starcraft.
3) Why is a completely new model out of the question? We've already established that converting SC2 to F2P isn't free. Several million dollars updating the game for the F2P would be a necessary cost.
I don't think they will be able to make millions of dollars with Sc2 F2P 12 months after LOTV has been released. One relevant metric to look at is total HOTS sales relative to current player activity. According to nios.kr there are 183,000 active ladder players out of roughly 3M copies of HOTS games sold.
That means 5% of the players who were willing to purchase HOTS plays it today. Why would the random COD/LOL-casual be so interested in playing Starcraft 1on1 when lots of ppl who purchased the WOL and the expansion aren't?
My point was that if anything it made more sense to have casuals interested in the arcade, but making that F2P barely mattered. So why would making the very comeptitive 1on1 F2P make a ton of new casuals interested in the game? I am sorry, but I think it's simply wish-thinking. Yes indeed, some extra people will try it out, and a few will stick with the game, howver, overall the effect will be much lower than most people expect.
People tend to look at the prime examples of LOL, Dota and Hearthstone as examples of succesful F2P-games while ignoring that not all F2P games are going to be succesful.
On top of the fact that Starcraft doesn't fit the F2P model very well comes the trouble that they are not launching a new product as F2P.
I don't believe you can just relaunch an old product as F2p without any signifcaint adjustments to the product, and besides that a succesful repositioning also requires a new business model and a new marketing strategy in order to get people's attention and interesting in trying it out. That's quite costly, and as I have tried to argue, the potential benefits are hugely exaggerated.
From a monetary perspective, it makes more sense for Blizzard to simply cut costs on Starcraft and try to develop new games which fits into the new F2P-era with optimized business models.
And as a noncasual player, I rather have blizzard focus their few Starcraftdevoted ressources on patches and getting out LOTV as fast.
|
You guys can go listen to the monkeys ill stick to the beatles, free to play is for terrible people who like terrible games. Not everyone wants to righ clickt 83% of their 70apm kiting fodder. If sc2 goes this route I wouldnt be the only one out.
|
How do you know that HOTS has been sold only 3M copies ? Last numbers I found was WoL sold at 6M in 2012! They might have sold a lot more since then, specially with HOTS.
Don't forget that even if there is only 300k actives players on the 1v1 ladder, this only represent a small portion of the players. Lot of people farm Arcades and multi.
|
On August 01 2014 01:14 Roswell wrote:
You guys can go listen to the monkeys ill stick to the beatles, free to play is for terrible people who like terrible games. Not everyone wants to righ clickt 83% of their 70apm kiting fodder. If sc2 goes this route I wouldnt be the only one out.
Yeah because making the game f2p will suddenly make you micro only one unit for the rest of its life. What ?
|
I made that thread on the official forums, awesome there is discussion about it and that it's on blizzard's radar. Question is if they actually will do anything.
Contrary to some people's beliefs, skins don't hinder competitive play whatsoever - that's some irrational fear from elitists.
Skins add more personality to players/the game and more of a fun factor for casuals. Look at LoL. Players use skins all the time and no one even thinks a second thought.
So it's really a question to blizzard of - hey, do you want more of this stuff -> $$$$$? We can only hope the answer would be yes.
Look at games like club penguin, maple story, LoL of course, etc. People are willing to pay for customization and to be like, "hey i have this badass looking thing, sup."
|
On August 01 2014 01:22 Faust852 wrote:
Don't forget that even if there is only 300k actives players on the 1v1 ladder, this only represent a small portion of the players. Lot of people farm Arcades and multi.
This is true. I play ladder, but I also enjoy the arcade. Most people I play with in the Arcade (I would say 8 out of every 10) don't have fancy frames around their portrait associated with a rank, and I often double-check their profiles to discover that most of them have never played ladder (or if they did, it was several seasons ago/back in Wings).
Also, a lot of my friends still play SC2 - but some of them have migrated to the Starbow community, some are on just to play Mineralz, Nexus Wars and Runling Run, some of them only like the campaign... and then there are a few like me who enjoy the ladder.
|
On August 01 2014 01:26 avilo wrote:
I made that thread on the official forums, awesome there is discussion about it and that it's on blizzard's radar. Question is if they actually will do anything.
Contrary to some people's beliefs, skins don't hinder competitive play whatsoever - that's some irrational fear from elitists.
Skins add more personality to players/the game and more of a fun factor for casuals. Look at LoL. Players use skins all the time and no one even thinks a second thought.
So it's really a question to blizzard of - hey, do you want more of this stuff -> $$$$$? We can only hope the answer would be yes.
Look at games like club penguin, maple story, LoL of course, etc. People are willing to pay for customization and to be like, "hey i have this badass looking thing, sup."
Mhh, I don't know. For instance with the Anniversary hat, since I have a small screen, I just can't see when my SCV has mineral or has not without looking thouroughly, that's annoying.
I really thing they need to be very carefull with the skin they use.
Skins on larger units might be much fancier tho, like hardcustomed battlecruisers, etc.
|
On August 01 2014 01:33 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 01:26 avilo wrote:
I made that thread on the official forums, awesome there is discussion about it and that it's on blizzard's radar. Question is if they actually will do anything.
Contrary to some people's beliefs, skins don't hinder competitive play whatsoever - that's some irrational fear from elitists.
Skins add more personality to players/the game and more of a fun factor for casuals. Look at LoL. Players use skins all the time and no one even thinks a second thought.
So it's really a question to blizzard of - hey, do you want more of this stuff -> $$$$$? We can only hope the answer would be yes.
Look at games like club penguin, maple story, LoL of course, etc. People are willing to pay for customization and to be like, "hey i have this badass looking thing, sup." Mhh, I don't know. For instance with the Anniversary hat, since I have a small screen, I just can't see when my SCV has mineral or has not without looking thouroughly, that's annoying. I really thing they need to be very carefull with the skin they use. Skins on larger units might be much fancier tho, like hardcustomed battlecruisers, etc.
I'm sure some people already mentioned it, there are already a couple skins in the game. The thor, ultralisk, zealot, and some things like overlords and supply depots have them.
It'd be so easy to make bank by monetizing the game more lol
|
Will this be added before or after paid name changes?
|
|
|
On August 01 2014 01:37 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 01:33 Faust852 wrote:On August 01 2014 01:26 avilo wrote:
I made that thread on the official forums, awesome there is discussion about it and that it's on blizzard's radar. Question is if they actually will do anything.
Contrary to some people's beliefs, skins don't hinder competitive play whatsoever - that's some irrational fear from elitists.
Skins add more personality to players/the game and more of a fun factor for casuals. Look at LoL. Players use skins all the time and no one even thinks a second thought.
So it's really a question to blizzard of - hey, do you want more of this stuff -> $$$$$? We can only hope the answer would be yes.
Look at games like club penguin, maple story, LoL of course, etc. People are willing to pay for customization and to be like, "hey i have this badass looking thing, sup." Mhh, I don't know. For instance with the Anniversary hat, since I have a small screen, I just can't see when my SCV has mineral or has not without looking thouroughly, that's annoying. I really thing they need to be very carefull with the skin they use. Skins on larger units might be much fancier tho, like hardcustomed battlecruisers, etc. I'm sure some people already mentioned it, there are already a couple skins in the game. The thor, ultralisk, zealot, and some things like overlords and supply depots have them. It'd be so easy to make bank by monetizing the game more lol
Yeah I know, I make thor only because of my collector edition skin. I just say that Blizzard need to be careful with skins since it could be annoying sometimes :p But i'm definitly for the f2p model with skins.
|
Every skin has the ability to add advantage or disadvantage.
Dark Zealots are harder to see on creep, Ling skin makes it looks like there are more lings than there really are and makes forcefielding them different.
It might sound silly, but every pro player will look into this.
There needs to be a switch off option and they can go as nuts with the skins as they like.
|
On August 01 2014 01:37 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 01:33 Faust852 wrote:On August 01 2014 01:26 avilo wrote:
I made that thread on the official forums, awesome there is discussion about it and that it's on blizzard's radar. Question is if they actually will do anything.
Contrary to some people's beliefs, skins don't hinder competitive play whatsoever - that's some irrational fear from elitists.
Skins add more personality to players/the game and more of a fun factor for casuals. Look at LoL. Players use skins all the time and no one even thinks a second thought.
So it's really a question to blizzard of - hey, do you want more of this stuff -> $$$$$? We can only hope the answer would be yes.
Look at games like club penguin, maple story, LoL of course, etc. People are willing to pay for customization and to be like, "hey i have this badass looking thing, sup." Mhh, I don't know. For instance with the Anniversary hat, since I have a small screen, I just can't see when my SCV has mineral or has not without looking thouroughly, that's annoying. I really thing they need to be very carefull with the skin they use. Skins on larger units might be much fancier tho, like hardcustomed battlecruisers, etc. I'm sure some people already mentioned it, there are already a couple skins in the game. The thor, ultralisk, zealot, and some things like overlords and supply depots have them. It'd be so easy to make bank by monetizing the game more lol
As some have pointed out, the worker hats make it harder to see if the worker is carrying minerals and the Zergling and Marine skins make it harder to judge the amount of that unit in a clump (for example, at a glance, 50 lings with the fancy skin can look like 80 lings without the skin). At first, this was really annoying and I often thought my opponents had more than they actually had. However, over time I got used to it (as every Zerg player I play on ladder uses that stupid skin!) and now it doesn't affect me anymore.
So, one argument could be made that bringing in new skins will affect the player's ability to perform. However, the argument can also be made that it's just part of the game, deal with. I think if they do bring in new skins, there must not be a way to turn them off. That would be defeating the purpose of the skin - to show off something cool you have.
The other thing is, Blizzard could simply design their skins specifically to not influence the appearance of spacing/unit size. At least in the LoL I've played, the various skins in that game don't affect how I perceive a situation. I think the design of the current skins in SC2 aren't the best of quality in that regard, and that could be improved (like with the stupid hats, they could have made them a different color/different size/different style and it would have been a lot less annoying).
Personally, I support any idea that might make SC2 a more popular game. As such, more customization can only help, and I think it'd be a good idea. Monetizing the skins would help Blizzard, which would in turn help our scene. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of my time to get used to new skins with the goal of making SC2 a more popular game.
|
Will not exactly synchronise perfectly, but Brood War sounds, please.
|
I don't like hats, I think their quite distracting. I can see why blizzard was against the idea of skins to begin with.
|
As shown in Serral vs Firecake [WCS EU] Challenger Day 2 the skins can be distracting and there needs to be options in custom game creation to disable them before series even start.
|
I don't want f2p games, I don't have the money to afford them lol. But on topic, disable skins option would pretty much destroy the reason for them to exist in the first place. But you really could reason that ladder should be something competitive and skins might have negative impact. As the giant winged lings already show.
|
Purely great news to anyone who can appreciate the relevance of this in a picture bigger than what anyone may or may not have to sometimes look at in game. Although, I have to say, it comes so painfully, stupidly late. I mean, ugh. Blizzard is just not savvy (or basically competent) enough to keep up with the pace of eSports, I think. All of the obviously important moves they can make as a company, in and out of the game.. come soooo late. They just seem to follow the lead of companies who are actually willing to put MORE into their games. There's no rocket science to this idea. Skins, yes. It has always been obvious. They have even dabbled in it by offering them as rewards. They just.. I don't even. I wish I understood why Blizzard lags so far behind when it comes to implementing content that is either integral or plainly beneficial to their game. The only thing I can ever think of is that it might be a money issue... but it's Blizzard. And it's already understood that the ideas are good and will lead to revenue. There is something about the way Blizzard develops games, and slowly plods through making changes to them, that just reeks of over-micromanagement in their design philosophy. Something, or someone, is actively causing stagnation, while other companies soar ahead, fully committed to great ideas, instead of deluding themselves into thinking they have learned some sacred ancient philosophy that must be kept to.
It's 2014 and Blizzard are still "talking" about an obviously worthwhile idea. That's all I'm saying. Something, or someone is gunking up the machinery over there.
..anyway, yay for talking about things everyone would like.. looking forward to seeing this happen with the release of lotv.. lol..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
