|
On December 17 2014 04:33 dAPhREAk wrote:
has any rts tested microtransactions and been successful?
dont really like the assumption that sc2 is not doing well because its not a f2p game. its more likely that it doesnt attract as many players/viewers because of the type of game.
Your right but it's not just that. I think if sc2 had alot more fluffy things like skins etc then ppl would be more motivated to play it.
casual players want achievable goals. I said this in my earlier posts. The casual player is overwhelmed with sc2. I mean look at bw and even wc3. The 1vs1 ladder players where a small part of the active playerbase while most players played dumbed down or to put it into a positive way: "focussed" UMS/funmaps. And boom Tower defense happened, and boom Moba happened. Those and other genres evolved from the fact that classic RTS is overwhelmingly hard and its even hard to improve in them.
So aside from the fluff like skins, LotV should bring more stuff like Archon mode and weekly tournaments. I really think micro challenges and things like that would be a very good addition to ladder play. Archon mode and weekly tournaments are going into the right direction. But Blizzard needs to learn from the past and extract interesting parts about their game into periodic challenges you can play with your friends or even alone and the brag about them. This would keep the game fresh and improve different areas of a casual gamers skillset so he improves faster and has more fun with the game in general.
|
On December 17 2014 04:49 Destiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet What about making it so that from bronze to gold, your main building automatically produces workers until you're at 16 on each base? Maybe you can set up a file before-hand to automatically create gasses at x number of workers? Then new players can simply focus on making units and attacking? Maybe up until silver league you can right click on a unit in a building and the building will automatically produce that unit, assuming you have the resources/supply to do so? Maybe in bronze/silver/gold leagues there are rocks outside of your natural expansion every game that have to be brought down to prevent people from early rushing you? Maybe through platinum league EVERY CC/hatchery/nexus has some sort of built-in defense system that lasts until 8 minutes have passed? There are ways to make the game more "casual friendly" at lower levels while still keeping the higher levels in tact.
Sure, that makes it mechanically less demanding, i am not sure if people would enjoy a clicking into each other though :D
The great thing about mobas is that every single hero is MUCH more interesting than a basic rts unit.
Maybe even more enjoyable to controll than a whole rts army. This is imo the basic problem, controlling rts armies isn't that exciting most of the time, could blizzard change that? Sure, but would it be starcraft after the change?
Some people might say adding interesting micro would already be enough, maybe they are even right about that, i don't know (if we assume your changes are in there as well, you have to eliminate as much multitaskin as possible to make it enjoyable for the masses imo)
|
On December 16 2014 04:00 Destiny wrote:
To look at parallels in SC2, some things just refuse to get addressed and even more bizarre patches are made. Buffing the widow mine for Terran, giving them medivac speed boosts, giving the hellbat upgrade immediately...The community has clamored for some kind of buff to the Terran late game but there's been no response at all from Blizzard about these kinds of things. The "perception" that the balance team/Dayvie doesn't listen to the community is well earned, imo, when strange/random changes come out of left field and leave everyone with a "...huh?" kind of feeling after reading some patch notes.
Incidentally, not that this is really the point, but these were some bizarre complaints to choose. There have been patches before that raised a lot of eyebrows (and many more maps introduced on ladder which raised some eyebrows) but these were an odd collection to complain about at this juncture. WM buff wasn't even that controversial as balance patches go – more so now that Terran is performing a bit better, but still not particularly whined about. The hellbat one hasn't been that controversial either – Zergs complained for a bit that early hellbat pushes were unstoppable but for the most part people don't think that anymore. And medivac speed boosts? I've scarcely heard someone complain about those since shortly after HotS released. Most people agreed they were cool, skill-based, etc. but were worried they'd be overpowered. When it became clear they were not game-breaking everyone moved on.
Compare that to the ghost snipe nerf, or the queen range buff, where huge portions of the community were talking about these changes and how problematic they were and Blizzard simply went ahead with them, with little to no explanation of their actions, and I'd say we've come a long way. I guess Destiny wanted to keep his examples current by using HotS patches, but none of those changes feel that bizarre and if there was significant discontentment about them, it was mostly along the lines of "patching RTS games too frequently breaks the meta" concerns which would exactly oppose Destiny's line of thinking. He is, after all, measuring the quality of their continuing support by how frequently they patch the game.
|
On December 17 2014 04:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 04:31 Destiny wrote:On December 17 2014 04:05 Hider wrote:
Destiny's theory is that Blizzard should adopt a business model based on microtransactions -> this gives Blizzard a financial incentive to continue developing the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense, because for Blizzard to change business models they require financial incentive to begin with. I'm assuming that Blizzard's management is aware of the success of MOBAs & CS:GO (Heroes of the Storm takes many lessons from those games), and the reason that SC2 doesn't use a F2P model is because it's not a good fit / the game is too old.
This is what has driven me crazy about Destiny. He is somewhat smart person, but when he gets on to one thought, he is just absolutely convinced he is right, and never assesses his own position by attempting to evaluate its assumption or do more research on the subject. This kind of thinking that "RTS is a special butterfly" needs to absolutely die ASAP. BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful. A year ago people said "FPS just isn't what it used to be back in the Quake and 1.6 days, we just have to accept that MOBAs are where it's at now" and boom, look at CS:GO now. Please stop with this "RTS is such a special, unique type of gameplay that could never be mainstream again!" You ignore decades of history with such an absolutely ignorant statement by being so incredibly short-sighted. But it kinda is. I think we all can agree that reaching for the masses practically means "make it as easy as possible to enjoy". Do you think sc2 fits there? What exactly can blizzard do about the gameplay to attract the average joe? Skins and voice packs might be interesting to think about as soon as we have a large enough playerbase to keep them playing, but there is no way these additions would help getting people to play the game in the first place (at least not longterm DUE to the gameplay) Some people say the arcade and therefore custom games are the easy solution here, but i srsly doubt that as well. Sure, years and years ago some mini games might have been a strong reason to keep playing that rts game (BW, Wc3), but would that be the same today? We have easy access to a lot of different games (via steam for example), would custom games really be enough for people to care about sc2? I think the archon mode was included for lotv exactly cause of this "problem", but will it be enough? TBF blizzard announced another game mode, but i think we don't have any real informations about that yet
This is where I think BW offers some excellent insight. The majority of people played game modes that were watered down versions of the real thing... close enough to make us feel like we were participating, distant enough to keep us from being overwhelmed until you get cozy enough with the game to take the plunge into actual laddering.
Archon mode is an example of institutionalizing that kind of attraction, but there needs to be more. Have a Money Map ladder/ weekly tournament (since we're getting automated tournaments anyway). That way lower level players have an opportunity to participate in the game in a way that won't give them carpel tunnel or ptsd, and eventually might lure them towards the competitive side. Or not, but as long as they;re having fun playing and watching, and spending a little cash here and there on skins or some shit, everyone wins.
|
On December 17 2014 04:54 clickrush wrote:
So aside from the fluff like skins, LotV should bring more stuff like Archon mode and weekly tournaments. I really think micro challenges and things like that would be a very good addition to ladder play. Archon mode and weekly tournaments are going into the right direction. But Blizzard needs to learn from the past and extract interesting parts about their game into periodic challenges you can play with your friends or even alone and the brag about them. This would keep the game fresh and improve different areas of a casual gamers skillset so he improves faster and has more fun with the game in general.
I'm hoping this feature will be just that:
ALLIED COMMANDERS Objective Based Co-Op Join the battle with a friend in an open-ended cooperative experience. Choose a powerful commander from your favorite race and fight in diverse scenarios with dynamic, campaign-style objectives. Level up your commander to gain access to new units, abilities, and customization options for your army. The time is now. The theater of war awaits, commander. Source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/legacy-of-the-void/#multiplayer
It sounds to me like a mix of StarCraft 2 and Diablo (bringing in persistent character progression, dynamically generated content, and primarily co-op multiplayer). I agree with Destiny's article that StarCraft needs a focused, Blizzard supported, casual experience--and I think this could be it. Hopefully this week's news drop Psione tweeted about will tells us more...
|
BW was hugely successful. WC3 was hugely successful.
First of all, I really don't like to use games that are 10-20 years old in order to support your thesis that RTS games can be casualf-friendly. The industry was very different back then. Rather, it makes sense to look at how the overall popularity of the genre has developed with Blizzard almost being the only active game-developer.
Secondly, were these games ever that popular in the west as you make them out to be? I believe that sales-numbers of Wc3 was lower than sales of SC2, and I am not sure that Wc3 ladder numbers were that big.
Custom games is ofc a different story, but today you have steam and lots of F2P-games that makes it easy for a lot of casual gamers to find accessible free games. The demand for custom-games/arcade is much lower today. If your argument is that Blizzard failed when they designed Bnet 2.0/the arcade, I agree. But I actually don't believe the mistake was to not make it similar to how it was in BW/Wc3. Instead, they messed up by not properly understanding how the industry would develop over the next couple of years.
The F2P model with micro-transactions is tested and works in FPS and MOBA games. TF2, Dota 2, LoL, etc..Why wouldn't it work with an RTS game? Even BW was pretty much F2P later on in its life if you used the ICCup launcher, though there were no microtransactions there.
3 potential reasons:
(1) As a general of thumb, a business model should be designed to fit with the target audience. The learning barrier to Sc2 is quite high, which makes it not very casual-friendly. An upfront fee cost is more likely to target the segment who are very dedicated. On the other hand - a game that is very accessible (e.g. Heatstone) fits perfectly with the F2P model.
(2) You feel less attached to your units in an RTS than heroes in a MOBA.
(3) You will need an enable-off skins button for the RTS which probably everyone will use since it can be too confusing to look at skins for lots of units. I believe that will take the point away from investing into the skins in the first place.
This doesn't mean that Blizzard can't make money out of skins. Instead, it implies that they are less likely to earn the same amout of money as in MOBA's.
Because we don't have access to the playerbase. Want real numbers? All Blizzard has to do is poll their audience. Or they can demo release ONE skin, look at the reception, and try to gauge reaction from there. It's not really possible for us to do as a community.
When analysts - in the stock indsutry - claim that "X company makes Y amount of money", they do not have all the data either. But they still make estimates by looking at comparable data. E.g. ARPU from comparable games. Perhaps one could look at case-studies to see what happens to playernumbers when a business-model changes. Then you make an argument for why the data you use are valid. Based on that you can make some type of argument for whether a certain decision would be finanically viable or not.
Now obviously this is a lot to demand from an Sc2-streamer (I don't mean this in a demaning way to be clear), but you make a strong claim that you are convinced Blizzard could make more money, right? You don't just say, "I think it could work".
If you said, the latter, I would be less demanding of the amount of research you put in, but when you make this out to be Blizzard being ignorant, you need to back it up with much more research.
sure have. And 2 years ago 40% of the community was telling me that I was wrong, and that SC2 was healthy, and that everything was "fine" and that my doom and gloom posts were just there to cause drama...and look where we're at now. SC2 is dropped as DH's main game and no one knows how much SC2 is even going to be at DH anymore. WCS EU and NA regions have been combined. WCS finals viewership is like 144k. Other major tournaments are getting 40-60k viewership, which is about what a high League streamer will get on any given night.
So a couple of things:
(1) I actually thought you were right back then. And while I changed my mind, you were probably also more right 2 years ago than you are today. The reason for that is that the potential earnings Blizzard could generate back then (when playerbase was larger) was much higher while the development costs likely would be the same. As I don't believe that making Sc2 F2P + selling skins will have a super big effect on the playerbase, (it won't increase it by 10 times for instance), this makes the financial incentive worse today.
.
(2) I think everyone knew back then that LOL was starting to take over the popularity of Sc2. The numbers we are having today are (probably) roughly in line with what a big part of the community expected in 2012.
(3) F2P will indeed increase playerbase --> higher viewership (ceteris paribus). Would be good for Sc2 in terms of esport. But that doesn't mean it's financial viable for Blizzard, and that's what's matters in the end.
|
My problem with Starcraft: fun to watch, godawful to play.
F2P or micro transactions won't change that.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Please, do not talk about arcade and F2P in the same sentence. Arcade is AFAIK accessible with starter edition. Therefore please do not mention custom maps, modes and this stuff since this is already free to play.
If we want to talk about FTP the nwe have to talk about ladder experience exclusively. Single player will not ever be free and the only thing which is not FTP is ladder.
Edit> I mean if arcade, USMS or w/e fun maps you think could save the SC2, it actually would. Because reasons ^
|
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
|
On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
That's pretty ignorant, if you think that.
|
On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer
|
On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
Hots single was really easy, simplified and bad, but I enjoyed WOL single and played it maybe 4-5 times over.
|
On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring.
Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people.
|
On December 17 2014 05:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer
Ok, then charge for single player and make ladder free. Seems easy enough.
|
On December 17 2014 05:59 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people.
Yet you come to teamliquid, an esports website heavily immersed in multiplayer sc2, and post in threads discussing the merits of blizzard's strategy involving the growth of the sc2 multiplayer fanbase?
|
On December 17 2014 06:05 johnbongham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer Ok, then charge for single player and make ladder free. Seems easy enough.
Yeah I mean when you put it like that... disregarding the fact that your little solution is obviously a net loss for Blizzard so you'd have to give it some thought. Maybe try that instead of just flapping your hands all over your keyboard and declaring that you've spoken the truth.
On December 17 2014 05:59 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people.
That sucks for them considering how the antagonists are now completely boring.
|
On December 17 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 06:05 johnbongham wrote:On December 17 2014 05:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer Ok, then charge for single player and make ladder free. Seems easy enough. Yeah I mean when you put it like that... disregarding the fact that your little solution is obviously a net loss for Blizzard so you'd have to give it some thought. Maybe try that instead of just flapping your hands all over your keyboard and declaring that you've spoken the truth. Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:59 maartendq wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people. That sucks for them considering how the antagonists are now completely boring.
Did I say I spoke the truth? Why are sc2 fans on this website so stubborn and boring? If the singleplayer is why most people buy the game, then sell the single player. They already do a free 'starter edition,' so what is the point of forbidding those players from accessing the 1v1 ladder? Sell the single player, make the multiplayer F2P, and then sell things like skins or singleplayer expansion maps. Pretending that blizzard has tried every possible option and the way they do it now is best is pretty ignorant. There is nothing different between an rts, an fps, and a moba.They are all just games. People play games for lots of reasons. A big reason people play other games than sc2 is because they are f2p, because they are social, and because they can customize their characters visually much in the same way people do in blizzards most succesful game of all time: WoW.
|
On December 17 2014 06:13 johnbongham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:On December 17 2014 06:05 johnbongham wrote:On December 17 2014 05:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Less than half of the people who buy the game play multiplayer. The majority of sales are from the singleplayer Ok, then charge for single player and make ladder free. Seems easy enough. Yeah I mean when you put it like that... disregarding the fact that your little solution is obviously a net loss for Blizzard so you'd have to give it some thought. Maybe try that instead of just flapping your hands all over your keyboard and declaring that you've spoken the truth. On December 17 2014 05:59 maartendq wrote:On December 17 2014 05:46 johnbongham wrote:
I'll never understand why blizzard wastes so much time on developing the singleplayer when it is obviously the multiplayer that most people want. Especially when the singleplayer has so many cool units and features that get cut for the multiplayer. I never even finished the hots single player it was so boring. Actually, a lot of people, probably a majority, buys the game for the campaign, plays some multiplayer games and then never touches the game again. I'm one of those people. That sucks for them considering how the antagonists are now completely boring. Did I say I spoke the truth? Why are sc2 fans on this website so stubborn and boring? If the singleplayer is why most people buy the game, then sell the single player. They already do a free 'starter edition,' so what is the point of forbidding those players from accessing the 1v1 ladder? Sell the single player, make the multiplayer F2P, and then sell things like skins or singleplayer expansion maps. Pretending that blizzard has tried every possible option and the way they do it now is best is pretty ignorant. There is nothing different between an rts, an fps, and a moba.They are all just games. People play games for lots of reasons. A big reason people play other games than sc2 is because they are f2p, because they are social, and because they can customize their characters visually much in the same way people do in blizzards most succesful game of all time: WoW.
Then yeah sure. Still it's not exactly simple, especially since there are arguments against skins in RTS. Voice packs like Destiny mentioned are definitely a great idea but would you really finance the game as much as you would with a normal pay to play business model? Hard to say... and Blizzard isn't going to take that gamble (even though I think we both believe that it would be good for them and for us as well)
|
I have to be honest here, if it wasn't for TeamLiquid.net, I would have stopped caring about SC2 long ago. I have 0 faith in the direction Blizz has gone in recent years, especially when compared to other companies that have emerged.
For me, it's this site and community that has retained by interest in SC2 for so long,along with the pro-personalities, not even the game itself. And while that is a mjor high-five to such a wonderful site, it doesn't say much to me for the game as a stand-alone. How many of us would be so involved or interested in SC2 if this site had never existed?
|
It's funny when you think about it. People spend hundreds on dollars on gaming peripherals (i.e. overpriced mice, keyboards and headsets) but don't want to pay for their games anymore.
Honestly, what is €40 for a game you'll get to enjoy for years to come?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
