|
Psione has made a post on the US B.net forums stating that there is increased discussions on the topic of hats/skins at Blizzard.
The addition of party hats for the 4th anniversary was always meant to be part of a limited-time event. While we added portraits for players to earn as part of the celebration, the hats were meant to be that little something extra to make it more fun. It seems that it hit the mark.  We've also seen the increased discussion on the topic of hats/skins the past few days. We'll be gathering all of the feedback we're seeing and discussing the topic in more detail on our end soon.
Blizzard have previously been opposed to the idea of implementing microtransactions for skins and the like, but this indicates at least a minor change in policy and a potential way for continued revenue past LotV. The implications of this aren't clear at this point, but it shows that Blizzard are still open to change.
|
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
that would be necessary indeed
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
This should be general courtesy. And I don't really care for skins, I want more campaigns!
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
I am all for them adding skins/hats/whatever, but on ladder games at least they should be disabled, IMO, or at least disablable (I would ask "sp?", but that's probably not a word so...).
|
I would love a toggle for classic BW sounds.
|
In the beginning i was strictly against it, but now, as HotS got boring too... give it to us!
It should be optional though. Skins on/off - selectable by the players.
But the blue post isn't very meaningful
|
The button to disable skins kind of defeats their purpose though. Seeing others players have cool cosmetics in game is the biggest advertisement one can ask for. During TI all of the pro players had the latest skins released especially for TI and the casters at one game went like look at this cool Etheral Blade X player's Morphling has equiped.
Although I certainly aggree that as long SC2 is a paid game that option should exist.
|
Good to know they're (finally) looking into it !
This has already been discussed quite a few times on TL, but I think it would be a great addition to sc2 to have more customisation options ! Especially for us, the amateurs. Pros would probably not welcome hats and alternate skins for all their units since they need to be able to assess a situation in a fraction of a second, and adding more skins for them to recognize would only make it more difficult. But for all the non pro out here who play for fun, this could be a great addition !
|
One step closer to F2P, always a good thing.
|
The crucial question in my opinion is the impact on hardware requirements. I play with everything on the lowest and the textures on units are pretty simple - I can't really imagine much room for customisaiton without increasing the detail in the textures, but that would bring performance penalty. So if there is no option to switch it off, I am not sure how it is even going to work with lowest settings ...
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51485 Posts
Aslong as you can turn them off for when you watch tournament level i don't mind this. Just please know for tournament level.
|
I want an option to disable all the stuff please.
Is there a way to edit the game files to disable the retarded ling wings and all the other cosmetic things?
|
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.
|
|
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 31 2014 18:23 MajorBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 31 2014 18:23 MajorBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Because if you remove the paywall, more people will play the game. That's all what we want right ? There are a lot of F2P not P2W out there and I don't see why they pose problem to you.
SC2 is declining slowly but surely, and passing in F2P will be a huge bawl of fresh air. I know a lot of people who might wanna try sc2 if it becomes free.
|
On July 31 2014 18:27 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +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.
He probably meant f2p that aren't p2w.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Though F2P has a big problem with cheaters if the system is not strong enough. And SC2 is surely not the case now. So unless Blizzard solves this they cannot change the model itself, IMO.
On the topic - I want wizard hat for Templars once they can cast storm1!1 ME DO WANT!!! MOAR HATS!1!1 :D :D 
|
United States252 Posts
Why are people against skins/cosmetics? If they are distracting you to much, maybe you should look into some ADD medication...
|
On July 31 2014 18:27 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +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.
As far as I am considered LoL is not a fair F2P model since some heroes are behind a paywall and need to be purchased. Also MOBA's are easier to customise (100 difeerent heroes) than RTS games and I doubt that F2P is the answer. Have you played a f2p MOBA? It is filled with people who do not know how to behave in a civilised manner. That is one of the huge disadvantages that comes with going F2P.
|
On July 31 2014 18:16 MajorBiscuit wrote:
The button to disable skins kind of defeats their purpose though. Seeing others players have cool cosmetics in game is the biggest advertisement one can ask for. During TI all of the pro players had the latest skins released especially for TI and the casters at one game went like look at this cool Etheral Blade X player's Morphling has equiped.
Although I certainly aggree that as long SC2 is a paid game that option should exist.
the problem is also that skins on a moba don't affect your computer too much, mass zergling with wings does
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 31 2014 18:35 MajorBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +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. As far as I am considered LoL is not a fair F2P model since some heroes are behind a paywall and need to be purchased. Also MOBA's are easier to customise (100 difeerent heroes) than RTS games and I doubt that F2P is the answer. Have you played a f2p MOBA? It is filled with people who do not know how to behave in a civilised manner. That is one of the huge disadvantages that comes with going F2P.
Ehm, I even created a clan named "Bad Manners Positive". I do not behave in a civilized manner unless I am playing a custom game, arcade or I know the person. Ladder is just a rage free zone to me So, no, paywall doesn't work as the BM thread shows (and I haven't been there yet to my surprise :D) And my opponents are not better than me, most of the time I am just the silent type doing myself ignoring their chat, but once it turns to !@#!@$!$!$! (I have filter on) I try to enrage them even more So, naaaah, paywall does not work
|
i think a form of in-game currency would be nice, the way you unlock the few skins and dances we have now is by leveling up, but leveling goes so fast you can be done with it in 2-3 days. if they give us a form of in-game currency (like influence points from LoL) and make it so that you get a bit of them every game (more if you win, less if you lose) then this would take away some of the ladder anxiety and make 1v1 a bit more casual because you get a reward no matter what, while now when you lose a 1v1 you gain nothing beside exp (which is incredibly useless after you hit the cap) and you lose your points. while if you gain a bit of currency you can use that to save up for a skin/portrait/decal.
|
Im indifferent to skins, but if this opens up the way to HUDs/Announcers then I'll be really happy. I agree that it definitely needs an on/off switch.
|
On July 31 2014 18:41 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:35 MajorBiscuit 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. As far as I am considered LoL is not a fair F2P model since some heroes are behind a paywall and need to be purchased. Also MOBA's are easier to customise (100 difeerent heroes) than RTS games and I doubt that F2P is the answer. Have you played a f2p MOBA? It is filled with people who do not know how to behave in a civilised manner. That is one of the huge disadvantages that comes with going F2P. Ehm, I even created a clan named "Bad Manners Positive". I do not behave in a civilized manner unless I am playing a custom game, arcade or I know the person. Ladder is just a rage free zone to me So, no, paywall doesn't work as the BM thread shows (and I haven't been there yet to my surprise :D) And my opponents are not better than me, most of the time I am just the silent type doing myself ignoring their chat, but once it turns to !@#!@$!$!$! (I have filter on) I try to enrage them even more So, naaaah, paywall does not work
That does not change what I said. On average the SC community is much more well behaved than the DOTA one. If the game goes F2P the forums will be filled with kids crying Protoss is imba, fuck this game going back to LoL (to a much higher degree than now).
|
On July 31 2014 18:50 MajorBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:41 deacon.frost wrote:On July 31 2014 18:35 MajorBiscuit 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. As far as I am considered LoL is not a fair F2P model since some heroes are behind a paywall and need to be purchased. Also MOBA's are easier to customise (100 difeerent heroes) than RTS games and I doubt that F2P is the answer. Have you played a f2p MOBA? It is filled with people who do not know how to behave in a civilised manner. That is one of the huge disadvantages that comes with going F2P. Ehm, I even created a clan named "Bad Manners Positive". I do not behave in a civilized manner unless I am playing a custom game, arcade or I know the person. Ladder is just a rage free zone to me So, no, paywall doesn't work as the BM thread shows (and I haven't been there yet to my surprise :D) And my opponents are not better than me, most of the time I am just the silent type doing myself ignoring their chat, but once it turns to !@#!@$!$!$! (I have filter on) I try to enrage them even more So, naaaah, paywall does not work That does not change what I said. On average the SC community is much more well behaved than the DOTA one. If the game goes F2P the forums will be filled with kids crying Protoss is imba, fuck this game going back to LoL (to a much higher degree than now).
You know that it's already the case ? Did you looked at official forums ? Lol.
And TL doesn't fear to press the ban button when you whine so that won't change a lot in here too.
|
On July 31 2014 19:08 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:50 MajorBiscuit wrote:On July 31 2014 18:41 deacon.frost wrote:On July 31 2014 18:35 MajorBiscuit 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. As far as I am considered LoL is not a fair F2P model since some heroes are behind a paywall and need to be purchased. Also MOBA's are easier to customise (100 difeerent heroes) than RTS games and I doubt that F2P is the answer. Have you played a f2p MOBA? It is filled with people who do not know how to behave in a civilised manner. That is one of the huge disadvantages that comes with going F2P. Ehm, I even created a clan named "Bad Manners Positive". I do not behave in a civilized manner unless I am playing a custom game, arcade or I know the person. Ladder is just a rage free zone to me So, no, paywall doesn't work as the BM thread shows (and I haven't been there yet to my surprise :D) And my opponents are not better than me, most of the time I am just the silent type doing myself ignoring their chat, but once it turns to !@#!@$!$!$! (I have filter on) I try to enrage them even more So, naaaah, paywall does not work That does not change what I said. On average the SC community is much more well behaved than the DOTA one. If the game goes F2P the forums will be filled with kids crying Protoss is imba, fuck this game going back to LoL (to a much higher degree than now). You know that it's already the case ? Did you looked at official forums ? Lol. And TL doesn't fear to press the ban button when you whine so that won't change a lot in here too.
I know that this is already the case but I also said that it will be even worse when the barrier of entry is lowered.
|
I am fairly sure it is going to happen.
Heroes are their main focus and most features if not all can be ported to sc2.
It servers as a perfect testing ground for them.
Hope I am not wrong on this
|
On July 31 2014 18:34 LastManProductions wrote:
Why are people against skins/cosmetics? If they are distracting you to much, maybe you should look into some ADD medication...
Maybe because some people think those things are retarded? Just a guess 
Seeing pink giant ultralisks running around is kind of against my idea of what SC is like. But, as I don't want to kill others joy, just have the freaking option to kill such things and everybody will be happy.
And please people, stop with the F2p idea...it is bad for you. And there are enough threads about it anyway.
|
On July 31 2014 19:17 KobraKay wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:34 LastManProductions wrote:
Why are people against skins/cosmetics? If they are distracting you to much, maybe you should look into some ADD medication... Maybe because some people think those things are retarded? Just a guess Seeing pink giant ultralisks running around is kind of against my idea of what SC is like. But, as I don't want to kill others joy, just have the freaking option to kill such things and everybody will be happy. And please people, stop with the F2p idea...it is bad for you. And there are enough threads about it anyway.
There's no denying that it's gonna happen.
And why Pink Ultralisk ? Did you see the Thors skin ? It's badass as fuck. There are a lot of skins cool like marauders, tanks, etc that are already implemented in the campaign and doesn't disturb the lore and the view.
|
On July 31 2014 18:29 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +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. Because if you remove the paywall, more people will play the game. That's all what we want right ? There are a lot of F2P not P2W out there and I don't see why they pose problem to you. SC2 is declining slowly but surely, and passing in F2P will be a huge bawl of fresh air. I know a lot of people who might wanna try sc2 if it becomes free.
I would be all for f2p, but I'm afraid it cannot happen until blizzard deals with maphackers.. imagine how many maphackers will there be if it becomes f2p, so many people would do it just to try it out and don't care about an account ban.
|
I think skins could be good. Only officially approved skins, and an option to turn them on/off. Its really just another optional feature to add that could provide a new revenue stream not otherwise tapped.
|
On July 31 2014 19:22 Extenz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:29 Faust852 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. Because if you remove the paywall, more people will play the game. That's all what we want right ? There are a lot of F2P not P2W out there and I don't see why they pose problem to you. SC2 is declining slowly but surely, and passing in F2P will be a huge bawl of fresh air. I know a lot of people who might wanna try sc2 if it becomes free. I would be all for f2p, but I'm afraid it cannot happen until blizzard deals with maphackers.. imagine how many maphackers will there be if it becomes f2p, so many people would do it just to try it out and don't care about an account ban.
Yeah that's my biggest worry too. I don't know if its feasable but making sc2 server side instead of client side would be awesome.
|
On July 31 2014 19:21 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 19:17 KobraKay wrote:On July 31 2014 18:34 LastManProductions wrote:
Why are people against skins/cosmetics? If they are distracting you to much, maybe you should look into some ADD medication... Maybe because some people think those things are retarded? Just a guess Seeing pink giant ultralisks running around is kind of against my idea of what SC is like. But, as I don't want to kill others joy, just have the freaking option to kill such things and everybody will be happy. And please people, stop with the F2p idea...it is bad for you. And there are enough threads about it anyway. There's no denying that it's gonna happen. And why Pink Ultralisk ? Did you see the Thors skin ? It's badass as fuck. There are a lot of skins cool like marauders, tanks, etc that are already implemented in the campaign and doesn't disturb the lore and the view.
Sure. Make the option to turn it all off a reality and you can have all the skins in the world you want.
|
On July 31 2014 19:16 ETisME wrote:
I am fairly sure it is going to happen.
Heroes are their main focus and most features if not all can be ported to sc2.
It servers as a perfect testing ground for them.
Hope I am not wrong on this
I remember DB said in a Heroes interview recently that it would be possible to port the functionality to spectate live games back to Starcraft, but that no-one was looking at it right now. I'd imagine theyre saving stuff up for LotV at this point.
|
Germany3367 Posts
If they do this, please give me the option to turn them off...
If the option is there, you can implement everything you want.
|
On July 31 2014 18:35 MajorBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +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. As far as I am considered LoL is not a fair F2P model since some heroes are behind a paywall and need to be purchased. Also MOBA's are easier to customise (100 difeerent heroes) than RTS games and I doubt that F2P is the answer. Have you played a f2p MOBA? It is filled with people who do not know how to behave in a civilised manner. That is one of the huge disadvantages that comes with going F2P.
I think you're misusing the term "paywall" as you can earn any hero by simply playing the game. It's possible that if the amount of time you have to invest to be able to purchase a hero is large enough then you might say heros are "effectively paywalled". However the time investment to unlock a hero in LoL is reasonable. You could call them "Playwalled"?
I think this is a good direction for SC2 to be going, but the skepticism people are displaying is warranted. The challenges for re-skinning thoroughbred RTS units are different and more restrictive than for re-skinning aRTS avatars. Units are smaller and there are a ton of them so there is, literally, less room for skins to show themselves and, figuratively, more room for skinning mistakes that make the game harder to parse visually. The party hats of the 4th anniversary are an example of this, as I found it hard to see if a behatted worker was holding minerals while watching streams.
Strong team colours which never change position and differentiated unit silhouettes would be good choices, as would putting emphasis on changing particle effects like lasers and so forth. I can't help imagining immortals with shields that go opaque silver when hit, oily black creep or marauders that fire energy weapons when I think about re-skinning and it makes me smile.
There's the whole playwall vs. paywall thing too. There will be a temptation on blizzard's part to paywall everything as it will all be cosmetic. However unlocking cosmetics through play would be a great way for blizzard to shape player behaviour, if they want more ladder play then throw skins at ladder games played. If they want more arcade interaction then put skins there.
Ultimately "more hats and skins" is generally a good idea but implementation is a wide open country and, while parts of it are sublime, some counties are ugly as all get out.
|
On July 31 2014 18:23 MajorBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Only Valve? Ever heard of League of Legends? It's got more players, more viewers and makes more money than DOTA 2.
There's plenty of other games that are free-to-play that make ludicrous money. Sure, a lot of them are at least a little pay-to-win, but there certainly exist a good chunk that are not.
EDIT: Not that I'm advocating for F2P, I vastly prefer to buy a game outright and never spend money on it ever again, I just recognise how very successful the F2P model has been.
|
I'd rather hear some news about LotV
|
Skins! Hats! Flags! Decals! Animations! Unlockables! Portraits! Penises!
Seriously, I like it. Of course, it should be possible to turn off all the fluff, but it adds some flavour to the game. And you don't have to buy that shit to enjoy the game. And Blizzard gets money. So everybody's happy.
I am happy.
|
On July 31 2014 19:29 [LYF] TN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 19:16 ETisME wrote:
I am fairly sure it is going to happen.
Heroes are their main focus and most features if not all can be ported to sc2.
It servers as a perfect testing ground for them.
Hope I am not wrong on this I remember DB said in a Heroes interview recently that it would be possible to port the functionality to spectate live games back to Starcraft, but that no-one was looking at it right now. I'd imagine theyre saving stuff up for LotV at this point.
Yup thats why I am not bothered by blizzard effort at heroes at all.
All those features can benefit sc2 too
|
If you can turn them off/on from ladder play then why not.
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
I want a button to turn them off now. I cannot stand the Zergling skin.
|
On July 31 2014 18:34 LastManProductions wrote:
Why are people against skins/cosmetics? If they are distracting you to much, maybe you should look into some ADD medication...
Because a progamer doesn't want to be distracted by suddenly seeing other skins. You might believe or not believe it, but change no matter how minimal it is can distract you and slow down your decisions
|
On July 31 2014 19:51 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them. I want a button to turn them off now. I cannot stand the Zergling skin.
The zergling skin is really poorly made tbh. The marine one is OK, so is the zealot (but since the zealot one is ugly as fuck I never see it).
|
But there a lot of skins that you can implement that won't annoy anyone, like Building Skins, you can make different creep textures, creep tumour, funny overlords or queens, more badass t3 units for carriers, BCs, etc... These, unlike zealots, zerglings, marines, don't have such a huge impact on the memory and on the view.
|
Considering how street fighter, tf2, lol and dota 2 are heavily skinnable, the argument aboutabout affecting pro seems very weak
|
I like hats, but my PC doesn't.
|
I'm sure when (not if, since I'm sure it's going to happen) they'll add them, there won't be an option to disable them, just like there's no option for existing skins and no such option in Dota 2, LoL etc (at least I believe so, don't really play/watch those).
Lots of people buying skins to show off, so what's the point to buy one if you'll know that everyone can just switch to the basic ones?
I hope they'll force tournaments to use default ones though, but even that is not likely. What's the best place to promote your skins? 20-30k stream sounds about right.
|
I'd be more excited about this if Blizzard had better artists working on SC2. Blizzard should outsource to get someone to make some Terran vehicle models that don't look like they're made out legos.
|
Increase prize pool for Blizzcon and make iot match Ti4 :D
make sc2 popular again D:
|
How about this as a way of implementing skins. The player gets to choose what sort of skin both his own units and the opponents units wear. In this way, those who are worried about confusing skins can choose to view only the ones they want or are used to.
|
I'm all for this as long as they do a similar thing to dota and make official blizzcon merch that boosts the prizepool.
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
This.
IMO adding skins are OK, it gives some variety for people who care about such stuff, but there has to be button to switch it off. I hate seeing them on my screen (zerglings are so annoying...) and I don't know many people who enjoy it.
|
I thought the party hats were cute for one day, but come on. Let the kids have their shiny things, but please include an option to turn them off. Prizepool boosting sounds good.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 31 2014 18:19 Faust852 wrote:
One step closer to F2P, always a good thing.
Yep, I agree with this.
I think they should fully embrace it, and any other micro transactions/rewards for activity they can think of. Yeah you need an option to turn it off, otherwise you'd be limiting yourself with how creative you can get, which would suck.
Also, where the automated tournaments at? It's been like 4 years, WC3 had them. Why no 2v2 or FFA support (again, WC3 had way better functionality for team games and ffa ladder). Think they are missing out on a lot of stuff that would keep people playing.
(I've been playing some 2v2 lately which is why I'm feeling disappointed at how poor battle.net is from a casual standpoint. Back inbetween when I quit SC1 and started SC2, me and a friend used to play a ton of 2v2 automated tournaments, we both sucked at WC3 but it was still really fun).
|
I like these things but i don't need them and i hate the party hats they put on!
We should be able to turn them off
|
Maru vs Sleep in proleague :
Maru does his trademark proxy hatch, sleep is prepared, workers fight ensues and then everybody ,esp the viewers, thinks : "OMG can we remove these silly party hats? Oo"
Sc2 is about identifying, selecting, clicking and managing plenty of very small units, adding skings can really mess the game up, hope Blizzard know what they're doing ....
|
Australia18228 Posts
On July 31 2014 20:14 TJ31 wrote:
I'm sure when (not if, since I'm sure it's going to happen) they'll add them, there won't be an option to disable them, just like there's no option for existing skins and no such option in Dota 2, LoL etc (at least I believe so, don't really play/watch those).
Lots of people buying skins to show off, so what's the point to buy one if you'll know that everyone can just switch to the basic ones?
I hope they'll force tournaments to use default ones though, but even that is not likely. What's the best place to promote your skins? 20-30k stream sounds about right.
Don't know about Dota2, but LoL designs skins so that their silhouettes are unique and easily recognised.
Based on the party hats, can't say Blizzard gives a shit about that.
|
Since SC2 is not all about the competitive scene, I think skins might be a good thing to get people to stick around and to pay more, and of course you should be able to turn them off if you don't want to see them because the last thing you need is a "what the fuck is that" moment during competitive play when you see dark templars shoot up your ramp on little motorcycles.
People are going to be opposed to it because many of us here are purists but meh, sometimes you have to go with it. At first I thought CSGO skins were stupid. Now I still think they're stupid but I want them  . (Thankfully I've never spent any money on it)
|
Skins are fine and fun, but they should be careful. In Dota there are just very little amount of units. While it's easy to recognize a zergling regardless of skin I find it way harder to guess the amount of zerglings in a large goup with the raptorling skin compared to the regular one, it's just a huge moving mass of wings.
|
On July 31 2014 21:55 Djzapz wrote:Since SC2 is not all about the competitive scene, I think skins might be a good thing to get people to stick around and to pay more, and of course you should be able to turn them off if you don't want to see them because the last thing you need is a "what the fuck is that" moment during competitive play when you see dark templars shoot up your ramp on little motorcycles. People are going to be opposed to it because many of us here are purists but meh, sometimes you have to go with it. At first I thought CSGO skins were stupid. Now I still think they're stupid but I want them . (Thankfully I've never spent any money on it)
CSGO skins are only for weapons so it's totaly different than unit skins.
|
On July 31 2014 22:01 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Skins are fine and fun, but they should be careful. In Dota there are just very little amount of units. While it's easy to recognize a zergling regardless of skin I find it way harder to guess the amount of zerglings in a large goup with the raptorling skin compared to the regular one, it's just a huge moving mass of wings.
What, you don't count each pair of wing to know how many zerglings he has ? noob. (jk)
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
I'm disappointed that OP isn't named AggregateBiscuit
|
On July 31 2014 22:02 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 21:55 Djzapz wrote:Since SC2 is not all about the competitive scene, I think skins might be a good thing to get people to stick around and to pay more, and of course you should be able to turn them off if you don't want to see them because the last thing you need is a "what the fuck is that" moment during competitive play when you see dark templars shoot up your ramp on little motorcycles. People are going to be opposed to it because many of us here are purists but meh, sometimes you have to go with it. At first I thought CSGO skins were stupid. Now I still think they're stupid but I want them . (Thankfully I've never spent any money on it) CSGO skins are only for weapons so it's totaly different than unit skins.
Not if you can turn them off anyway, which I'm saying should be possible. In which case it's not different. If the units are recognizable anyway it's just adding to a learning curve in a very basic and simple way that no respectable player should complain about since it'd be one of the easiest areas of the game to figure out. And if you can toggle it off it's even easier.
People are making a fuss about something which would just be good for SC2 by adding to the player base, keeping players interested and all around making the game less stale. It helped CSGO tremendously. You can argue that it's "different" but in essence it really isn't.
|
Seems like a cool enough idea. Why not?
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
I'd be totally into this if I could turn all my ghosts into Nova
|
lmao
'shot peopel arnt playing the game'
'hmm what do other games have that sc2 doesnt'
'umm well is it because the game got patched to the point where its not as fun as it once was?'
'nah its because other games have HATS!'
'hey shuold we make it so that you have to play 200 games before swarm hosts are unlocked?'
'AMAZING IDEA!!!!'
etc
2 weeks later
'hey why not introduce a unit that makes the game fun and charge peopel every tiem they build it?'
surely they should be putting time and effort into the game not into fucking art?
|
^TF2. Funniest game ever. Hats.
On July 31 2014 22:17 lichter wrote:
I'd be totally into this if I could turn all my ghosts into Nova
Hell yeah :3
|
At lease, let us the choice to enable/disable those skins because I really hate the fact that I got to see those hats on every stream since 5 days.
|
ye i want an option to turn it all off, those winged lings already make it difficult and as for that sup dep . . . . .
|
On July 31 2014 22:17 MrTortoise wrote:
lmao
'shot peopel arnt playing the game'
'hmm what do other games have that sc2 doesnt'
'umm well is it because the game got patched to the point where its not as fun as it once was?'
'nah its because other games have HATS!'
'hey shuold we make it so that you have to play 200 games before swarm hosts are unlocked?'
'AMAZING IDEA!!!!'
etc
2 weeks later
'hey why not introduce a unit that makes the game fun and charge peopel every tiem they build it?'
surely they should be putting time and effort into the game not into fucking art?
They're not putting the time and effort into the game you want already, otherwise this would already be happening. It's not. Also I'm not sure if you've heard of game design and art design, but all non-indie companies have both programmers, designers, AND artists. I know that at Blizzard artists mostly work at cinematics, so you won't miss any of David Kim's glory.
|
Russian Federation262 Posts
Well, im very pleased to see HUDs over Models.
|
If they want to do it, why not (but it doesn't seem to be something people are that enthusiastic about if you read the first pages of the topic carefully), but they HAVE to allow players who don't want to see them to disable them (something people, on the other hand, do want quite unanimously). That option is by the way long overdue, ever since they introduced silly skins like the zergling, zealot or ultralisks one, which aren't aesthetically pleasing at all.
And the "never ending birthday party" makes me so mad the simple thought of it sets my teeth on edge, so I won't harp on it.
|
The naive Destiny-idea where Blizzards just offers a lot of new skins which can be purchased, whereafter the playerbase increases, is IMO quite unrealistic.
Destiny is confusing something here: People don't play LOL/Dota becasue they can stuff. The buy-element is rather a neccesary evil in order to implement the superior F2P business model. But buying-stuff doesn't increase the playerbase in it self. It only works if everything else in the business model can be adjusted to it.
The idea that someone would choose to play Sc2 just so he can purchase some skins seems so extremely unlikely to me. If someone is purchasing stuff in Sc2, chances are he would have played the game regardless. Thus, in terms of affecting the playerbase, it just doesn't matter.
In terms of increasing utility value for players, I personally it's just a dumb gimmick that most people won't really care about after a very short while. In the same proces your also just hurting players who dislikes looking at it.
Since SC2 is not all about the competitive scene, I think skins might be a good thing to get people to stick around and to pay more, and of course you should be able to turn them off if you don't want to see them because the last thing you need is a "what the !@#$%^&* is that" moment during competitive play when you see dark templars shoot up your ramp on little motorcycles.
So your implying here that people wanna play more Sc2 if they have the option to spend more money on stuff that noone else but them selves will see?
In the real world, one of the main reasons you wanna purchase expensive/pretty clothes is so that other people can see it. If noone else but you could see your cloth, you would likely just hang out in your pyjamas all day long. The same concept can IMO be applied to skins here. Very few people will purchase it if other people are just gonna turn it off.
And then ofc, I think it's absurd to think that purchaseable skins will have any noticeable impact on player acitvity for more than 1-2 weeks.
|
I think i've been losing more games lately because of the damn birthday hats. My workers are literally working like it's their birthdays (and it literally isn't their birthday because I play Terran (Those are grown men in those things)). They slack off and refuse to get out of the way of banshees/banelings/mutalisks/widow mines/roaches/oracles/dark templars.
Please Blizzard, I'm begging you, please please please let me turn off Hats so that my SCVs can get their (in the) rears in (with the) gear.
I don't want to have to execute anymore lackadaisical workers.
Sincerely,
Concerned Employer
|
On July 31 2014 18:27 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +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 fuck about hats, but clearly a lot of gamers like that sort of thing.
|
On July 31 2014 23:38 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
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.
|
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..
|
Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm are Blizzard's attempts at the f2p market, not SC2. SC2 was developed in an older era, and it will stay on an older business model.
SC2 is already almost as free as it's gonna get with the Starter Edition getting the entire arcade and custom games library. The restrictions to ladder play and chat makes sense to avoid abuse, and campaign logically should always be a paid addition.
More skins might bring in a bit of extra revenue, but I doubt it's going to bump up the player base much. I'd rather see Blizzard work them into LotV as non-monetary unlocks and leave it at that.
|
On August 01 2014 00:31 Hider wrote:
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're underestimating the potential for growth under a F2P model and you're also overestimating the costs to Blizzard relative to the size of Blizzard. You could very well be right that it won't end up making sense but the point is Blizzard can afford the risk. Anyways it's normal for a product late in its lifecycle to drop in price. HotS retails for 20 USD now. With very few changes they could just offer up SC2 for free with in game purchases, as part of the product's natural lifecycle. A few hundred thousand active users making occasional micro-purchases is better than a few hundred thousand active users not giving Blizzard any money at all. Making SC2 eventually F2P also allows the game to continue to attract new users long past the point where it could sell a significant number of copies at a retail price and keeps SC relevant during the long downtime between SC2's last expansion and the release of SC3. SC2 going F2P doesn't even need to turn a profit. It just needs to lose less money than the alternative options if it comes to that.
None of this means that they're going to take resources away for WoW or Hearthstone or Heroes of the Storm or whatever more lucrative projects they have in the pipeline. Blizzard doesn't operate in zero-sum way. Cuttings costs from Starcraft doesn't free up resources for other projects. Every project has to justify its budget and Starcraft certainly justifies it's budget.
|
I really don't care if there are or if there arent skins in the game. Skins are not going to be what drives people to Starcraft, and I feel if they cannot be at least disabled (at most streamlined and clean) then it might drive more people away than bring people in.
|
|
|
I wish there was a way to disable the current customized skins for zerglings and stuff. It's impossible to count them when they have those gigantic wings.
|
glad they're moving on now that the game is balanced /s.
but yeah, i guess this is where the real money is *points to TF2's unholy hat economy*
|
On August 01 2014 03:26 Banchan wrote:
I wish there was a way to disable the current customized skins for zerglings and stuff. It's impossible to count them when they have those gigantic wings.
Yeah, I agree with this as well. Pretty annoying in 2v2 in particular, but also frustrating in 1v1.
|
I've already 2 expansions full price on my shelf looking for a third .. exactly how hats can turn this game in a Free to Play, they're giving me the money back?
|
On August 01 2014 03:54 InVerno wrote:
I've already 2 expansions full price on my shelf looking for a third .. exactly how hats can turn this game in a Free to Play, they're giving me the money back?
I think that they're gonna consider all the loyal fans who paid for the game already.
A couple of solutions might be:
1. Keep the game as it is right now and have hats added in
2. Make the game free to play and reimburse with some sort of Blizzard Wallet (I think they have one already)
I feel like it's also way too early to determine how this would be implemented, since they're only now discussing the idea more seriously.
|
Ooooh, hats! Man, I have been watching SC2 the last couple of days trying to figure out what the fuck was going on. "Why do these SCVs look so weird!?"
...now I know...Silly Blizzard, they look ridiculous lol
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
I am pretty sure that's the point of skins, to show off. It won't work otherwise.
None of the new games with skins have the option to turn them off.
|
On July 31 2014 18:34 LastManProductions wrote:
Why are people against skins/cosmetics? If they are distracting you to much, maybe you should look into some ADD medication...
I'd prefer not to look at (imo stupid) party hats and other things like that. Not that they're omg so distracting I can't play, just dumb to where it doesn't fit the feel of StarCraft.
Add them, make people pay for them, reduce the price of SC2 overall, and give us an option to turn them off.
But also like someone else mentioned, add legacy BW sound effects to the game (units and spells) and I'll pay for it. Haha.
|
i don't think i would purchase any skins unless it came from currency earned within the game but i would welcome the idea of skins.
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
Yes, please. I'm all for Blizzard adding in little cosmetic things that some people enjoy, as long as there's an option for the rest of us to disable them.
|
I'm all for skins for SC2. If it wants more attention and people to keep playing it, just look at DotA for how successful skins/hats/ect. are. I feel that a disable button isn't needed. I'd rather have skins without a disable button rather than that be the reason SC2 doesn't get skins along with some more popularity. As long as the skins aren't ridiculously distracting, I would definitely put a hefty amount of money into new cosmetic items.
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
Completely agree with the toggle option. I don't care if other people want to use them, but I might not want to be forced into that distraction.
|
In one month you guys will pray to the lord so Blizzard doesn't go full retard with skins
In other news, according to the SteamAnalyst.com website CSGO has raked in 10m Euros through the skin market in the last 180 days. More info here.
|
I am surprised they haven't done this yet similar to valve and CS GO (I imagine it's the same way in dota as well). You can buy skins, sell skins and valve gets a % as well as the buy a key and try to get a skin in a lottery type of way.
Always surprised me blizzard doesn't do this because it's insane how many people actually pay for that kind of stuff. So much money potential.
|
Starcraft is unplayable right now for b/c of the hats...looks like my drones are carrying minerals when they've got fucking hats on.
|
On August 01 2014 03:59 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 03:54 InVerno wrote:
I've already 2 expansions full price on my shelf looking for a third .. exactly how hats can turn this game in a Free to Play, they're giving me the money back? I think that they're gonna consider all the loyal fans who paid for the game already. A couple of solutions might be: 1. Keep the game as it is right now and have hats added in 2. Make the game free to play and reimburse with some sort of Blizzard Wallet (I think they have one already) I feel like it's also way too early to determine how this would be implemented, since they're only now discussing the idea more seriously.
Why would the game going F2P really be a bad thing for people who have paid for the game? Presumably if you're a loyal fan than you've had the game from the start and have already had your moneys worth. More importantly though the game going F2P is a good thing for existing players. I want more people playing the game, it adds positvely to the experience of playing SC2 (particularly for multiplayer and arcade games). That plus adding in things like skins and the like makes the game better imo.
I do think they should give something to people who already own the game but it doesn't have to be much. There is no way blizzard should reimburse people who have already bought the game.
On August 01 2014 11:05 blade55555 wrote:
I am surprised they haven't done this yet similar to valve and CS GO (I imagine it's the same way in dota as well). You can buy skins, sell skins and valve gets a % as well as the buy a key and try to get a skin in a lottery type of way.
Always surprised me blizzard doesn't do this because it's insane how many people actually pay for that kind of stuff. So much money potential.
It always makes me wonder why people say SC2 couldn't work as a F2P. There are plenty of ways to make money using things like this. Lets not also forget that they can sell the SP campaign as well. Would it work as well as some other F2P games? Maybe not but i still think it would make more money than the current model.
|
If Blizzard have implanted skins at the release of HotS or earlier, it would help a lot in popularity. But now it is a little bit late.
|
On August 01 2014 11:05 blade55555 wrote:
I am surprised they haven't done this yet similar to valve and CS GO (I imagine it's the same way in dota as well). You can buy skins, sell skins and valve gets a % as well as the buy a key and try to get a skin in a lottery type of way.
Always surprised me blizzard doesn't do this because it's insane how many people actually pay for that kind of stuff. So much money potential.
If Heroes of the Storm is of any indication, it seems that Blizzard is more inclined to copy Riot's business model rather than Valve's.
|
i expect team apparel like skt1 pls
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
I feel the same way, so stupid and distracting when i'm trying to play and focus......THIS IS STARCRAFT , THIS IS WAR.....NOT A BIRTHDAY PARTY !!! I WANT TO KILL MY OPPONENT NOT EAT BIRTHDAY CAKE WITH THEM!!!
On August 01 2014 12:45 .kv wrote:
i expect team apparel like skt1 pls
although this would be cool :p
|
Cool I guess. Idk seems a bit late, but blizzard is a company of doing things when they feel like it. But they should have a feature to turn off the customization for the people who think it will ruin the game for them.
|
As long as units are easily distinguished, I don't mind. But I don't want people picking a skin because it's making it tougher for their opponents to play.
Edit: And I don't think skins are specifically the thing that could maintain Starcraft or some shit. Making it F2P and finding another way to monetize it is. You could sell maps or campaign missions or something, that would be equally good or even better. I'd like custom 1-map mini-campaigns or mission maps, Age of Kings Conquerors style.
|
I hate them. I've been really annoyed that the hats lasted this long.
Just my opinion though.
|
Next they'll be talking about swapping out your marines for chicks in sexy lolita schoolgirl outfits. No thanks, skins are fucking dumb as shit.
Also just wanted to note that the skins make creating mods/custom maps just a little bit harder.
|
It would be a lot less visually invasive to implement UI skins and voice packs instead of in-game skins.
|
I would rather the game not have any skins. I want to be able to see things cleanly. The current raptor ling skin for zerglings is already annoying as hell.
If they DO add a bunch of skins, I would like for a way to disable them. But such an option would probably never happen, especially if they decide to charge money for skins. After all, the whole point is to show them off to other people.
And I also hope the game never goes F2P.
1. More whiny people and children who only play free games.
2. More cheaters because there is no penalty for getting banned. It's a fact. When Battlefield 3 went on humble bundle for $1, suddenly you had a bunch of new players but also a bunch of rage hackers on throwaway accounts. When CS:GO goes on sale at 75% off, suddenly there's a surge of cheating (in fact that community is vehemently against the game going F2P, and they also want discount sales to stop because of this). DOTA2 gets away with this because it is coded in a way that maphacks are impossible (everything in fog is hidden from clients) -- if only SC2 was the same.
3. I don't think something like cosmetic skins is going to draw people to a game or have any lasting impact on player population.
|
On July 31 2014 18:34 LastManProductions wrote:
Why are people against skins/cosmetics? If they are distracting you to much, maybe you should look into some ADD medication...
dude obviously you don't play at a high level... skins and hats are distraction to more than the eyes... they create clicking errors and mechanic mistakes. it's not about the conscious decision making, it's all subliminal and if u try to focus on too many things at once your subconscious would actually affect your conscience...
|
On August 01 2014 14:36 Advantageous wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:34 LastManProductions wrote:
Why are people against skins/cosmetics? If they are distracting you to much, maybe you should look into some ADD medication... dude obviously you don't play at a high level... skins and hats are distraction to more than the eyes... they create clicking errors and mechanic mistakes. it's not about the conscious decision making, it's all subliminal and if u try to focus on too many things at once your subconscious would actually affect your conscience...
I don't find it distracting.
|
Considering both Dota2 and League have cosmetic items in professional play (granted some of the LoL ones are disabled due to unclear particles and the like, not sure about Dota2), I don't think it'll be that different for SC2. It'll be different, but not worse. Because SC2 is a lot more busy than Dota/League, you should have an options to
1. Disable all cosmetics - default only(Might not happen, option is not available for dota2/league)
2. Self cosmetics for everything (for low end systems who still want customization, possibility given the chance of going into a game with 4+ full sets of cosmetics and the corresponding hit in performance)
3. Self+default. Shows up to 4 sets of cosmetics in a 4 person game(Might not be enough of a performance hit over option 2. to warrant this option).
4. All - For those with the beefiest of systems.
Spectator client should probably default to all so you can at least see how the players like it.
|
I really hope they fix all the annoying bugs in the UI before anything else. The "one versus one" stuff bug, the huge time it take sometimes to open a profil/change mod/etc. The weird cpu overload on the menu too, wtf it's supposed to be some kind of hub, why does it takes >700mb of ram with sometime huge spike at 2gb.
|
Well the reality is this:
If micro transactions are not supported in SC2, Blizzard will cut out all SC2 support a few months after Lots.
Making the game with F2P with micro transactions won't rejuvenate the scene. SC2 is quite free to play already, and like others have mentioned, it will attract children the the scene, increase of hackers.
At the end, there are no positives to this, besides Blizzard having motivation to keep supporting the game after LotV. But realistically, I dont think there's enough players to make enough money to justify having a development team for skins. And if you can't disable your opponents skims, it'll ruin other people's experiences, and if you do allow people to disable them, not many people would by them.
Doomed to fail :/
|
Nova ghosts would be pretty cool Would buy.
|
On August 01 2014 14:01 eviltomahawk wrote:
It would be a lot less visually invasive to implement UI skins and voice packs instead of in-game skins.
WIN!
Yeah, the unit skins really run the risk of making the game more difficult on the eye then it needs to be. The zergling wings for example look terrible IMO. To much detail in a game with so big unit clumping problems can really mess things up.
|
I think this is a great idea, as long as the skins are more actual "skins" (like the good ole days) than "models". Like others have said, the raptor lings make it hard to see how many lings there are. Skins shouldn't have an effect like that, though the marine skin is OK.
Can't wait to see what Blizzard has in store X) Even if it'll take 10 more years...
|
I don't think that skins itself would increase popularity of the game, although I do support having more LORE FRIENDLY skins and other stuff (srsly valve fucked up with tf2, I'm disappointed but the game is this playable and fun). IMO this game should drive its main focus to more casual game modes than 1v1, e.g. ranked team monobattles, 8v8 100 supply cap, team CTF, something crazy and fun for casuals and balance those modes separately. They would have those same elements that 1v1 has so even casual players would still kinda understand games played in tournaments. I'm not a fan of f2p model, so much annoying kids...so much cheaters...and trolls...but maybe lowering price of the game? Look at the cs:go, it costs about 15 euros or something, on sale 3 euros the best, the SECOND most played game on steam (after dota 2), the skin/hat market is running like a beast and the e-sport scene is doing good.
|
Introduce paid skins and features along with f2p ladder, costumers who paid for the game will have the option to disable skins.
|
I just want to keep my hats
|
CS got skins and it completely ruined the game. All the forums are all about betting, trading, scamming, doing giveaways etc and noone watches the matches for the game itself it seems. People even DDOS the pro players of the stronger team during matches to win more skins on bets..
edit: Also having a ranked ladder with F2P is very detrimental as it will generate infinite possibilities for hackers to get new accounts, like in LoL. Every time CS:GO goes on sale, matchmaking is flooded with cheaters and that is just horrible for gameplay.
|
Make the game free while your at it, so the community grows instead of the ongoing collapsing,
|
On August 03 2014 01:17 Uni1987 wrote:
Make the game free while your at it, so the community grows instead of the ongoing collapsing,
As completely sensible as you're being, Blizzard is not. They're only just now opening their minds that tiny smidgeon necessary to
TALK
more
...about skins.
|
On August 01 2014 13:11 ZenithM wrote:
As long as units are easily distinguished, I don't mind. But I don't want people picking a skin because it's making it tougher for their opponents to play.
Edit: And I don't think skins are specifically the thing that could maintain Starcraft or some shit. Making it F2P and finding another way to monetize it is. You could sell maps or campaign missions or something, that would be equally good or even better. I'd like custom 1-map mini-campaigns or mission maps, Age of Kings Conquerors style.
Yeah, I don't really see it as a problem and as long as it was like Dota, you would always know what unit is what. Hell, they even a few custom animations and people figured it out and didn't become totally unable to play. I don't think they need a button to turn them off, but of course there would be very vocal section of the community that would scream at the top of their lungs and whine about someone moving their cheese.
|
On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them.
Agreed, always hated that. Ive been playing a bit of dota2 for almost 2 years and I still get confused by some hereos because of all these different skins... not the kind of thing you want in a competitive game.
|
Making Starcraft 2 free to play would kill the game. The only reason sponsors are even interested in Starcraft 2 teams, is because demographics of the player base are players typically 20 years + of age that have money to spend, and that is good player base to advertise to.
Making Sc2 free would kill that, not to mention map hacking is a pretty big issue with the game being play to buy, It would be a nightmare if it was free.
|
On August 03 2014 03:16 LingBlingBling wrote:
Making Starcraft 2 free to play would kill the game. The only reason sponsors are even interested in Starcraft 2 teams, is because demographics of the player base are players typically 20 years + of age that have money to spend, and that is good player base to advertise to.
Making Sc2 free would kill that, not to mention map hacking is a pretty big issue with the game being play to buy, It would be a nightmare if it was free.
I dont understand how having more people play the game will hurt sponsorship. The same 20+ guys will buy skins or whatever. SC2 has very very very little real sponsors (companies outside of energy drinks and computer shit).
Maphacking is not that big of an issue and being f2p or not isn't going to change that..
|
On August 03 2014 03:10 sM.Zik wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them. Agreed, always hated that. Ive been playing a bit of dota2 for almost 2 years and I still get confused by some hereos because of all these different skins... not the kind of thing you want in a competitive game.
Except dota is a competitive game and I have never hard a single pro complain about skins. Every hero still looks like every hero, regardless of how awesome their hats are.
|
On July 31 2014 18:12 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them. This should be general courtesy. And I don't really care for skins, I want more campaigns!
This, if they release high quality campaign missions I wouldn't mind paying a few bucks it.
|
On August 01 2014 12:45 .kv wrote:
i expect team apparel like skt1 pls
Yes please.
|
Abathur voicepack would be nice.
|
On August 03 2014 03:35 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 03:16 LingBlingBling wrote:
Making Starcraft 2 free to play would kill the game. The only reason sponsors are even interested in Starcraft 2 teams, is because demographics of the player base are players typically 20 years + of age that have money to spend, and that is good player base to advertise to.
Making Sc2 free would kill that, not to mention map hacking is a pretty big issue with the game being play to buy, It would be a nightmare if it was free. I dont understand how having more people play the game will hurt sponsorship. The same 20+ guys will buy skins or whatever. SC2 has very very very little real sponsors (companies outside of energy drinks and computer shit). Maphacking is not that big of an issue and being f2p or not isn't going to change that..
Map hacking is a huge issue in Blizzard RTS games, making SC2 free would destroy the game and be a nightmare for Blizzard who already struggles vs them. Free to play player base does not spend money like the current sc2 community does on sponsors gear.
|
On August 03 2014 04:11 LingBlingBling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 03:35 Bigtony wrote:On August 03 2014 03:16 LingBlingBling wrote:
Making Starcraft 2 free to play would kill the game. The only reason sponsors are even interested in Starcraft 2 teams, is because demographics of the player base are players typically 20 years + of age that have money to spend, and that is good player base to advertise to.
Making Sc2 free would kill that, not to mention map hacking is a pretty big issue with the game being play to buy, It would be a nightmare if it was free. I dont understand how having more people play the game will hurt sponsorship. The same 20+ guys will buy skins or whatever. SC2 has very very very little real sponsors (companies outside of energy drinks and computer shit). Maphacking is not that big of an issue and being f2p or not isn't going to change that.. Map hacking is a huge issue in Blizzard RTS games, making SC2 free would destroy the game and be a nightmare for Blizzard who already struggles vs them. Free to play player base does not spend money like the current sc2 community does on sponsors gear.
That's of course a given, but it's not as if the former precludes the latter. Also you're ignoring the huge effect in sustainability with having F2P in various scenes. Look at all the money poured into WC3/Dota/Heathstone in China/SEA. Unlike the WCS model of Blizzard charity, these scenes support themselves.
|
The one and only downside of F2P is the surgeance of MH. But since MH is already a fucking cancer (I heard it it about 2% of players. Guess what ? ML is 2% of players too)
Still, I don't think it would change the feeling too much, since the player count will probably rise in proportion.
But please Blizzard, make you game server based and not client based. Thank you.
|
On August 03 2014 03:35 Bigtony wrote:
Maphacking is not that big of an issue and being f2p or not isn't going to change that..
Are you ignoring every other game that has had huge discount sales and immediately afterwards a massive increase in cheating? When your game license / account costs nothing, there is nothing at stake for people who cheat.
|
On July 31 2014 18:34 LastManProductions wrote:
Why are people against skins/cosmetics? If they are distracting you to much, maybe you should look into some ADD medication...
Skins are kind of a scam, it's useless content that appeals largely to dimwits with too much money. I'm happy to move to a business model where I don't pay for anything because other people get duped into endless micro transactions and can cover financially, but it's kinda dystopian at the same time.
|
On August 03 2014 03:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 03:10 sM.Zik wrote:On July 31 2014 18:09 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
Fuck no. If they add skins/hats, I want button to switch them off so I don't need to see them. Agreed, always hated that. Ive been playing a bit of dota2 for almost 2 years and I still get confused by some hereos because of all these different skins... not the kind of thing you want in a competitive game. Except dota is a competitive game and I have never hard a single pro complain about skins. Every hero still looks like every hero, regardless of how awesome their hats are.
I never said it wasn't a competitive game and I never talked about progamers. I'm talking about my own experience while im trying to play this game. You can have your useless swag if that makes you feel better, just let me turn it off since it's annoying for me.
|
On August 03 2014 04:11 LingBlingBling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 03:35 Bigtony wrote:On August 03 2014 03:16 LingBlingBling wrote:
Making Starcraft 2 free to play would kill the game. The only reason sponsors are even interested in Starcraft 2 teams, is because demographics of the player base are players typically 20 years + of age that have money to spend, and that is good player base to advertise to.
Making Sc2 free would kill that, not to mention map hacking is a pretty big issue with the game being play to buy, It would be a nightmare if it was free. I dont understand how having more people play the game will hurt sponsorship. The same 20+ guys will buy skins or whatever. SC2 has very very very little real sponsors (companies outside of energy drinks and computer shit). Maphacking is not that big of an issue and being f2p or not isn't going to change that.. Map hacking is a huge issue in Blizzard RTS games, making SC2 free would destroy the game and be a nightmare for Blizzard who already struggles vs them. Free to play player base does not spend money like the current sc2 community does on sponsors gear.
How the fuck can you relate the pay model (and more so the inclusion of skins) to hack and cheating?
It's an issue of engine (synchronous doesn't help) an security, not demographic.
Of course bigger player base would mean more cheater, but I'm not sure the proportion would change much.
The only thing is that it would be easier for them to "get a new account" if they get banned for cheating. But that would assume Blizzard was actively doing it in the first place. (hint: they seems lazy as fuck)
Same for sponsor, why wouldn't they want the same player base they already have (people won't quite the game just because they can't pay $60 upfront) + all peoples that couldn't/don't want to afford it (East european countries, teenagers)?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the "bonus" skins/models/hats/sounds I would like to see them, and maybe even with "F2P" model.
With only two conditions :
-No advantages (visibility and hitbox of units should remain same)
-Deactivable at least in ladder both for you and the others (I do NOT wanna see your shinny Ling skins)
|
On July 31 2014 18:16 MajorBiscuit wrote:
The button to disable skins kind of defeats their purpose though. Seeing others players have cool cosmetics in game is the biggest advertisement one can ask for. During TI all of the pro players had the latest skins released especially for TI and the casters at one game went like look at this cool Etheral Blade X player's Morphling has equiped.
Although I certainly aggree that as long SC2 is a paid game that option should exist.
That's fine, casters can turn it on and talk about it all day long, but when I'm on ladder playing versus the guy. I don't need to see his skins, it's distracting.
|
On August 03 2014 23:45 varsovie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 04:11 LingBlingBling wrote:On August 03 2014 03:35 Bigtony wrote:On August 03 2014 03:16 LingBlingBling wrote:
Making Starcraft 2 free to play would kill the game. The only reason sponsors are even interested in Starcraft 2 teams, is because demographics of the player base are players typically 20 years + of age that have money to spend, and that is good player base to advertise to.
Making Sc2 free would kill that, not to mention map hacking is a pretty big issue with the game being play to buy, It would be a nightmare if it was free. I dont understand how having more people play the game will hurt sponsorship. The same 20+ guys will buy skins or whatever. SC2 has very very very little real sponsors (companies outside of energy drinks and computer shit). Maphacking is not that big of an issue and being f2p or not isn't going to change that.. Map hacking is a huge issue in Blizzard RTS games, making SC2 free would destroy the game and be a nightmare for Blizzard who already struggles vs them. Free to play player base does not spend money like the current sc2 community does on sponsors gear. How the fuck can you relate the pay model (and more so the inclusion of skins) to hack and cheating? It's an issue of engine (synchronous doesn't help) an security, not demographic. Of course bigger player base would mean more cheater, but I'm not sure the proportion would change much. The only thing is that it would be easier for them to "get a new account" if they get banned for cheating. But that would assume Blizzard was actively doing it in the first place. (hint: they seems lazy as fuck) Same for sponsor, why wouldn't they want the same player base they already have (people won't quite the game just because they can't pay $60 upfront) + all peoples that couldn't/don't want to afford it (East european countries, teenagers)? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ For the "bonus" skins/models/hats/sounds I would like to see them, and maybe even with "F2P" model. With only two conditions : -No advantages (visibility and hitbox of units should remain same) -Deactivable at least in ladder both for you and the others (I do NOT wanna see your shinny Ling skins)
easy.
1)Hack
2)get banned
3)use money for new account
in f2p
1)hack
2)get banned
3)hack
4)get banned
5)hack
...
|
On August 04 2014 01:54 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 23:45 varsovie wrote:On August 03 2014 04:11 LingBlingBling wrote:On August 03 2014 03:35 Bigtony wrote:On August 03 2014 03:16 LingBlingBling wrote:
Making Starcraft 2 free to play would kill the game. The only reason sponsors are even interested in Starcraft 2 teams, is because demographics of the player base are players typically 20 years + of age that have money to spend, and that is good player base to advertise to.
Making Sc2 free would kill that, not to mention map hacking is a pretty big issue with the game being play to buy, It would be a nightmare if it was free. I dont understand how having more people play the game will hurt sponsorship. The same 20+ guys will buy skins or whatever. SC2 has very very very little real sponsors (companies outside of energy drinks and computer shit). Maphacking is not that big of an issue and being f2p or not isn't going to change that.. Map hacking is a huge issue in Blizzard RTS games, making SC2 free would destroy the game and be a nightmare for Blizzard who already struggles vs them. Free to play player base does not spend money like the current sc2 community does on sponsors gear. How the fuck can you relate the pay model (and more so the inclusion of skins) to hack and cheating? It's an issue of engine (synchronous doesn't help) an security, not demographic. Of course bigger player base would mean more cheater, but I'm not sure the proportion would change much. The only thing is that it would be easier for them to "get a new account" if they get banned for cheating. But that would assume Blizzard was actively doing it in the first place. (hint: they seems lazy as fuck) Same for sponsor, why wouldn't they want the same player base they already have (people won't quite the game just because they can't pay $60 upfront) + all peoples that couldn't/don't want to afford it (East european countries, teenagers)? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ For the "bonus" skins/models/hats/sounds I would like to see them, and maybe even with "F2P" model. With only two conditions : -No advantages (visibility and hitbox of units should remain same) -Deactivable at least in ladder both for you and the others (I do NOT wanna see your shinny Ling skins) easy. 1)Hack 2)get banned 3)use money for new account in f2p 1)hack 2)get banned 3)hack 4)get banned 5)hack ...
For the moment it's more like
1)Hack
2)profit.
So it doesn't really change. Hackers don't get banned unless they are huge dumbass, but if it's the case they'll probably die soon enough because they'll think they can stop a train with their heads. Yeah, this kind of dumbassness.
|
|
|
There is literally no way to make an RTS f2p model. Since diamond+ players would turn off ( not buy skins at all) so the overall profit would be lower than standard buy-key/box.
Those who said there that starter account could be f2p for 1v1 ladder should visit the doctor. Where is the profit there? Majority of ppl playing the game ONLINE… and who would pay checks for art directors, content and campaign makers? Nobody…
Next thing, everybody here trying to complain SC vs CS:GO,League of Fags and Doto2… those games have no single player at all (doto has some but its more like tutorial) they are just strict MP games which allowed them to be f2p.. SC is provided with great scenario and awesome campaing every game... And it costs a lot to develop it.
On the other hand, Blizzard should wake up and check some business models for tournaments etc. TI4 was awesome idea and they know they have got a power to the same and raise the huge prize pools.
The only thing I like are customizable UIs and Voice Packs not the ingame skins. There are some variations of LoTV business plans from me:
1.) Make the game extremly cheap in pre-sale with special deca lor voice pack
2.) Do RaF discount – Bringing like 5-10 ppl to the game, help or force them to hit lvl 35 for one race than receive a cod for discount (this could happen before LoTV)
3.) Profit from the hype and feedback.. Bring the pros or the legends to BlizzHQ let them play LoTV early access and let them spoke about it and than do step 1. or 2.
4.) Raise your dongers :D
I hope I will see some kind of those ideas like that, because I don’t see bright future in it. As you can see f2p models got more and more problems as time is going on.
|
I have found hats to be kind of obnoxious in my opinion, though once the game gets going you don't really care anymore.
It's glad to see Blizzard finally waking up in terms of skins and other cosmetics. Starcraft units are quite diverse and having different looking units can be very nice for anyone. Other things like the UI, more portraits, more interesting achievements (like a portrait for a 10 win-streak, though you'd have to balance it so that you're at a stable MMR), etc. An FFA ladder. Automated tournmanets also sounds nifty, you could get medals or something for winning 'em (different medals for different leagues). I think there are tons and tons of way to add zest to the game. The core game play is fine and it's there, but I've always felt that starcraft 2 lacks quite seriously in the social / fun aspect. You only ever log on to sc2 to ladder (at least for me), rarely to "have fun" if you see what I'm getting at. Or maybe even ridiculously difficult co-op missions. Who knows?
Blizzard have a lot of work on their hands since there are lots of aspects that could be improved in starcraft 2, hearthstone as well by the way. Hearthstone is "supposed" (is it?) to be a social, fun card game, however you can't chat with ANYONE. Wouldn't it be nicer if people could spectate games and chat while spectating? Great way to learn while you're at it. Then again it's not like Hearthstone isn't doing fine already.
|
Hey, I'll probably spend a shit tons of money is stupid skins tbh.
|
If sc2 ever becomes f2p, then I hope that won't include the ladder.
|
On August 03 2014 01:14 neptunusfisk wrote:
CS got skins and it completely ruined the game. All the forums are all about betting, trading, scamming, doing giveaways etc and noone watches the matches for the game itself it seems. People even DDOS the pro players of the stronger team during matches to win more skins on bets..
edit: Also having a ranked ladder with F2P is very detrimental as it will generate infinite possibilities for hackers to get new accounts, like in LoL. Every time CS:GO goes on sale, matchmaking is flooded with cheaters and that is just horrible for gameplay.
If you just looked at things like Twitch chat for Dota you would think people only watch to bet items because people are only talking about their rares that they are losing. It didn't "ruin" the game at all, CS:GO was pretty dead before and now it's doing better than SC2. It helped the game massively, it's way more popular now and the eSports scene is thriving now.
|
All I want is that my drone can look like a probe and my zergling can look like a small tiny zealot.
|
On August 04 2014 21:57 Procake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 01:14 neptunusfisk wrote:
CS got skins and it completely ruined the game. All the forums are all about betting, trading, scamming, doing giveaways etc and noone watches the matches for the game itself it seems. People even DDOS the pro players of the stronger team during matches to win more skins on bets..
edit: Also having a ranked ladder with F2P is very detrimental as it will generate infinite possibilities for hackers to get new accounts, like in LoL. Every time CS:GO goes on sale, matchmaking is flooded with cheaters and that is just horrible for gameplay. If you just looked at things like Twitch chat for Dota you would think people only watch to bet items because people are only talking about their rares that they are losing. It didn't "ruin" the game at all, CS:GO was pretty dead before and now it's doing better than SC2. It helped the game massively, it's way more popular now and the eSports scene is thriving now.
CS GO is not popular because of skins. It is popular because it 'reunited' the split CS 1.6 and CS:S communities into one game again, with all competitive teams moving to it. The ingame twitch integration also hugely boosted its twitch viewership. People play CS because it is CS, and has always been the one of the most played FPS on PC.. the skins are just extras.
|
On August 05 2014 01:01 Genome852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2014 21:57 Procake wrote:On August 03 2014 01:14 neptunusfisk wrote:
CS got skins and it completely ruined the game. All the forums are all about betting, trading, scamming, doing giveaways etc and noone watches the matches for the game itself it seems. People even DDOS the pro players of the stronger team during matches to win more skins on bets..
edit: Also having a ranked ladder with F2P is very detrimental as it will generate infinite possibilities for hackers to get new accounts, like in LoL. Every time CS:GO goes on sale, matchmaking is flooded with cheaters and that is just horrible for gameplay. If you just looked at things like Twitch chat for Dota you would think people only watch to bet items because people are only talking about their rares that they are losing. It didn't "ruin" the game at all, CS:GO was pretty dead before and now it's doing better than SC2. It helped the game massively, it's way more popular now and the eSports scene is thriving now. CS GO is not popular because of skins... it is popular because it 'reunited' the split CS1.6 and CS:S communities into one game again, with all competitive teams moving to it. The ingame twitch integration also hugely boosted its twitch viewership. People play CS because it is CS, and has always been the one of the most played FPS on PC.. the skins are just extras. They didn't ruin the game but they aren't why it's popular.
Yeah sorry, that's what I meant. And I also mean the skins increased the popularity in that they funded the 250k tournaments Valve have every few months, Katowice had 200k+ viewers, the increased money has made the tournaments a lot more hype, and have way better production. Way more people actually watch it now.
|
When will the hats disapear? This is so annoying and ugly..
|
On August 05 2014 01:04 Procake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2014 01:01 Genome852 wrote:On August 04 2014 21:57 Procake wrote:On August 03 2014 01:14 neptunusfisk wrote:
CS got skins and it completely ruined the game. All the forums are all about betting, trading, scamming, doing giveaways etc and noone watches the matches for the game itself it seems. People even DDOS the pro players of the stronger team during matches to win more skins on bets..
edit: Also having a ranked ladder with F2P is very detrimental as it will generate infinite possibilities for hackers to get new accounts, like in LoL. Every time CS:GO goes on sale, matchmaking is flooded with cheaters and that is just horrible for gameplay. If you just looked at things like Twitch chat for Dota you would think people only watch to bet items because people are only talking about their rares that they are losing. It didn't "ruin" the game at all, CS:GO was pretty dead before and now it's doing better than SC2. It helped the game massively, it's way more popular now and the eSports scene is thriving now. CS GO is not popular because of skins... it is popular because it 'reunited' the split CS1.6 and CS:S communities into one game again, with all competitive teams moving to it. The ingame twitch integration also hugely boosted its twitch viewership. People play CS because it is CS, and has always been the one of the most played FPS on PC.. the skins are just extras. They didn't ruin the game but they aren't why it's popular. Yeah sorry, that's what I meant. And I also mean the skins increased the popularity in that they funded the 250k tournaments Valve have every few months, Katowice had 200k+ viewers, the increased money has made the tournaments a lot more hype, and have way better production. Way more people actually watch it now.
Good point.
I remember when GO was always at the bottom of twitch viewership, always less than a few hundred viewers. Now it always has thousands at any given time. Valve are pretty genius at these things.
|
On August 03 2014 06:14 Genome852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 03:35 Bigtony wrote:
Maphacking is not that big of an issue and being f2p or not isn't going to change that.. Are you ignoring every other game that has had huge discount sales and immediately afterwards a massive increase in cheating? When your game license / account costs nothing, there is nothing at stake for people who cheat.
Maphacking is not a huge issue. It effects a very low percentage of games played. It has no effect on tournament play and very little effect on arcade play.
Take a look at every other game out there right now. You're delusional if you think that going free to play will not help starcraft 2. People are not cheating en masse in dota2, league, hearthstone, etc. but they are buying cosmetic items in droves to support the game.
None of this matters at all unless Blizzard takes a huge step up to support the community/scene and make the game more welcoming to beginners (not easier, just welcoming). I dont want to slop them completely because they have tried in the past, but take a look at what riot/valve do in their games and it's night and day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
