On May 21 2007 18:39 semioldguy wrote: Actually paying to play might increase my chances of playing, it means less immature people most likely. Most people who complain about these relatively small monthly fees are the people without jobs and people I generally don't like anyway.
okay, maybe not increase, but it wouldn't stop me. And there is always LAN.
Yeah because in WoW you have a lot less immature ppl, and how about ppl who can't find a job or teenagers from poor families ? what a bunch of bastards, complaining for getting ripped off 15 bucks a month to play 6 games a week....
Do us a favor, get the fuck out -__-;
Hey, I don't play WoW, back when I did play MMOs quite a few years ago it wasn't rampant with immature people. Apparently that's not true anymore.
I was a teen from a poor family. I've even had to live on the street before. And you can always find a job if you are out there looking hard enough. At sixteen I had found a job and was making more than either of my parents and helped them with bills, and food and such. Even if you're poor, you can still learn to manage a little money each month to have fun or for the ones you care about to have fun. Additionally, from my experience, the ones complaining aren't the ones who make little money, they are the lazy people who can afford it but don't like the idea of having to pay.
I don't have a problem with people who make little or no money, I have a problem with the attitude that usually comes with those people who publicly complain about it. When your dirt poor, you complain among those you live with about money issues, but you don't bring those complaints to other people. So why don't you shut the fuck up until you learn a little more about what you're trying to defend.
edit: it's a very embarassing thing for a teen to be a part of a poor family so why would they want to bring attention to themselves for being poor by complaining about it?
Whoa, I think you took a post way too personally. I don't think he meant it as an attack on poor people or anything... he's just making a simple point... why would anyone want to pay extra money when it can be free? It's easy to see everything as an attack of who you are, but get over it. =/
Did you even read these posts? Clearly he is not attacking poor people, as any idiot could see.
I didn't see it as an attack of "who I was." I am angry because he is defending his position using examples filled with his ignorance, and the sarcasm doesn't help him cause. If he expects a civil response, he should give them himself. "Do us a favor, get the fuck out" seems hostile to me. Why the fuck shuold I be nice to him if he responds to me like that?
Not everything in the world can be free, everything in the world cost something somewhere along the line. If a company is using their resources in providing the service of cracking down on hackers, creating a pleasurable and stable multiplayer gaming environment and other various forms of support for a game; then they have a right to charge a fee for their efforts.
If someone is making money off something they are much more likely to do a better job than if they weren't getting paid for it. And they will want to keep people paying for the service or attract other to the service (depending one one-time or recurring fees) which will also encourage them to keep doing a good job as they don't want to lose people/business.
Dude, calm the fuck down. kthx.
A monthly fee would destroy the SC2 fanbase completely. Why the hell would anyone pay $10 a month for SC2 when they can play SC, WC3 or C&C3, or any other RTS for free? Plus, unlike WoW, which even non-hardcore players play for like 5 day each month, most people who play Starcraft 2 may only play 10 or so hours every month. Point being: for nearly everyone who plays MMORPGs, it costs a few cents an hour to play, so none of them care about the cost.
they might implement some kind of cost like xbox live, but they'll have to be really taking care of the ladder, like microsoft, or else that kind of idea will fail.
but i dont think they would implement payment in their bnet services
On June 02 2007 09:05 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: they might implement some kind of cost like xbox live, but they'll have to be really taking care of the ladder, like microsoft, or else that kind of idea will fail.
but i dont think they would implement payment in their bnet services
They probably toy with the concept of making battle net similar to xbox live, so people who pay can participate in tournaments, download vods, replays and join the battle.net "community activities"... Then add basic(free) and gold membership on battle.net, which probably will split the community...
overall everything points to blizzard doing something like this, which is Lame
If you're going to look at potential extra costs beyond the price of the box itself and it's contents, you'll have to look for "new" features. The reason why MMO's can get away with a monthly pay plan is because when they were introduced they were something that was superior and new to what was currently out on the market. I remember way back when Ultima Online first came out I thought "Wow, I can play with 100s or even 1000s of people at once!?!" Because of this new feature of massively multiplayer they could charge a fee.
How does this apply to SC2? As many have pointed out, no RTS in history has charged a monthly fee. If they give us a fairly standard RTS in terms of innovative features/extras then they can't expect people to pay for what has been free in the past. It's similar to the MP3 piracy in the way that once the ball gets rolling it's damn difficult to stop. If when Napster first came out it charged some fee that would be the accepted standard. But since it was free the RIAA is having a hell of a time convincing people it's wrong. You can't mess with people's accepted standards without a fight. Our standard is RTSs are free.
So if they want to charge us for something, it will have to be something new that the gaming masses will view as worth the additional cost. I'm not sure what kind of feature they would have to come up with to get us to all to shell out more money though. Things like balance and abuse support we already expect free, especially from Blizzard as we know the game won't survive without it anyway. Perhaps if they have tournaments that have an entry fee with some kind of cash payout? Maybe sweeten the pot by getting a well known progamer to enter the tournament as well. I think there would be a decent number of people that might be willing to pay to have a chance to face Bisu, Savior, Boxer, etc.
@Mani's statement about people respecting their IDs: If everyone had 1 ID that once registered they were somehow stuck with it forever then people might act less stupid knowing that it would be closer to real life in that you can't just make a new ID and not have your reputation follow you. Perhaps similar to Diablo 2's system where everyone makes an account that houses 8 or so characters. Irregardless of what character is logged in, if you do a /whois on that character it will display their account name. Doesn't work in D2 since you can have any number of accounts, but if each key was tied to 1 account max or unique ID, then you could still make new names but people would know who you are.
If it's pay to play I wouldn't do it no matter how good the game is. Buying the game is payment enough.
Phyre the reason why MMO's are pay to play is because of server costs. RTS have practically no server costs because the players themselves host the game.
On June 02 2007 11:38 Dionyseus wrote: If it's pay to play I wouldn't do it no matter how good the game is. Buying the game is payment enough.
Phyre the reason why MMO's are pay to play is because of server costs. RTS have practically no server costs because the players themselves host the game.
From a logistical standpoint yes, so the reasoning makes a bit more sense to some gamers. But even if there were new costs involved in running an RTS that doesn't do much to sway gamers. Most of us probably don't really care if Blizzard's costs have gone up, we want to know what we'll be getting in return for our extra cash and it better be something new.
Well, I don't mind paying to play, as long as the payout results in the something worthwhile; active admin system, online competitive play comes to my mind first.
Are people that poor that they cant pay 15 bucks a MONTH???? (which is what it most likely be). save a dallor half the days of every month and you have it.. Im sure if it was pay to play it would be fucking sweet.
On June 02 2007 11:51 [jOyO] wrote: Are people that poor that they cant pay 15 bucks a MONTH???? (which is what it most likely be). save a dallor half the days of every month and you have it.. Im sure if it was pay to play it would be fucking sweet.
So what would we get for that extra $15 a month? The most obvious comparison would be with WC3 in terms of features, but let's compare this to all RTSs on the market now. What would that $15 give us that other RTS games don't already give us for free?
Anti-hack? They already will give us this for free, it is integral to the games success and even if they charged for it there is no guarantee that they can totally eliminate all hacks. WoW still has abuse from what I've heard. There is just higher expectations if we pay.
Better patch support? Again, this is considered standard for most RTS games. If they don't patch it regularly until it's considered "balanced" for the most part it will die.
Tournaments? From what I understand, WC3 already has this for free as well. Perhaps if there is some large prize then they could charge an entry fee.
On June 02 2007 11:51 [jOyO] wrote: Are people that poor that they cant pay 15 bucks a MONTH???? (which is what it most likely be). save a dallor half the days of every month and you have it.. Im sure if it was pay to play it would be fucking sweet.
Haven't you heard of Bulgaria? Minimum salary is under 80 euro per month, in Luxembourg for example it's over 1500 WoW costs 15 euros a month here. So imagine now that you make around 20 times less and see if you can live with that money at all, let alone pay 15 euro monthly fee for a game.
On June 02 2007 04:20 ChApFoU wrote: Stop this bullshit dude, Blizzard is making loads of money from these games and they will sell millions of copies of SC2 no matter what.
That wasn't a personal attack but I still think saying "Most people who complain about these relatively small monthly fees are the people without jobs and people I generally don't like anyway" is utterly retarded. Guess what there's a whole big world outside of the united states, places where sometimes you cannot get a job even when you look hard enough and where wages are incredibly low.
There are ppl who are in difficult situations and who are not complaining ad blaming others, these ppl have the right to entertain just as we do right ? And it's not always that simple to just go around the streets and ask for a job. And what about youngsters who want to focus on school ? you are calling me ignorant but you look very narrow minded.
So I'm asking you, what do we have to gain with monthly fees ? Absolutely nothing, and people who are low on money have everything to loose, chinese, russians ppl form eastern europe.
I know I wasn't very mannered with my response sry about that, but I still completely disagree with you and I still think you sounded like a asshole in that first post :/
Yeah, I’d agree that it’s an assholish thing to say, but for me it’s true. And it’s not that I dislike people in that category, as I’ve already mentioned it’s the attitudes of the people and their immaturity that make me dislike them.
The people who are not complaining are not the ones I’ve got a problem with, and they do have a right like the rest of us do. If anyone works hard enough today though, they can make a few extra bucks each month, with the internet as a tool a little extra cash is not as hard to come by as it once was. If they are already able to pay an internet bill, I am guessing that they are at least well enough off to figure something out. If they aren’t then it is likely they should be less concerned about playing games anyway. Is that fair to say? No. But it's at least partially true and these probably aren't the people greatly anticipating new computer games.
Youngsters who want to focus on school should do that. They obviously have a lot less time to focus on earning money, but that doesn’t make it impossible. There are plenty of ways that don’t include holding a job to make a few extra bucks.
As for ignorance, yeah, I am ignorant of things. I’m not that dumb. You are ignorant of things as well. Everyone is ignorant to some thing or another. Someone claiming that they are not ignorant of anything is a pretty ignorant thing to say. No one knows all about everything. Being ignorant and narrow minded are not the same.
What do we have to gain from monthly fees? I already explained some of that if you read to the end of my last post. Even more funding for support of a game could be used for lots of gain. And as I also said it doesn’t have to be recurring, but it could be a one-time fee, which also helps with a lot of the issues for the less wealthy. A one-time fee is what I would most like to see.
Feel free to disagree with me; you’re welcome to. These are just my opinions on the matter and what I believe could potentially make the gaming experience much more pleasant overall for those playing. I apologize if I may have offended you in my previous posts, as that is not my aim to do so.
On June 02 2007 06:03 PJA wrote: Dude, calm the fuck down. kthx.
A monthly fee would destroy the SC2 fanbase completely. Why the hell would anyone pay $10 a month for SC2 when they can play SC, WC3 or C&C3, or any other RTS for free? Plus, unlike WoW, which even non-hardcore players play for like 5 day each month, most people who play Starcraft 2 may only play 10 or so hours every month. Point being: for nearly everyone who plays MMORPGs, it costs a few cents an hour to play, so none of them care about the cost.
Apparently you didn’t read my post either. Did you get the part where the fee didn’t have to be recurring, but could be a one-time cost? They could pay the extra money for the support that Blizzard might be able to offer the new game, features that aren’t available for other games. I’d pay for that. If people were to pay to play I think they would respect the online community a lot more and possible weed out a lot of people who would otherwise just be disrespectful assholes. I’d pay for a better online gaming environment.
If there were something completely new and unique to RTS games which Blizzard was offering for Starcraft 2, I might be willing to pay for that.
And also, A LOT of people seem to care about the cost of any game fees, even MMO’s, so I don’t know where you got the idea of “Point being: for nearly everyone who plays MMORPGs, it costs a few cents an hour to play, so none of them care about the cost.” Because that does not seem true at all.
On June 01 2007 22:57 OGROKTEHUBER wrote: @semioldguy:
Same old bullshit arguments, same old bullshit attitude, same old bullshit "rags to riches" story.
1. Charging $15 a month didn't do shit to stop spoiled little kids from taking over WoW. 2. Ever heard of the product support life cycle? Apparently not. This may come as a surprise to you, but supporting the software you have written is actually a major part of remaining competitive. Or do you honestly think anyone would play (and thus continue to buy copies of) Starcraft if it was filled with exploits and unbeatable unit-massing strategies? 3. I could probably afford to pay a lot more for gas, but I'm not fucking stupid enough to trip over myself in an attempt to get gas companies to raise prices. Funny how the capitalist mindset actually encourages people to look only at the "soundness of the business decision by the company" and ignore the fact that they are getting ripped off.
First of all, I am by no means anywhere close to rich. So your “rags to riches” theory failed. It’s more of a rags to tattered clothing upgrade. And you didn’t read my post very carefully either.
1. I already addressed the WoW issue, go back and read it. 2. Um, what are you talking about? If anything this could be used to argue for extra payment to play online to ensure longer and better support for the game. Free games generally lose their support after some time (Blizzard is better with this than most other companies). And what is this shit about unit-massing strategies? Nowhere else is this mentioned in this thread. Are you in the right place? 3. I’ve never been in a situation to actually be the one to make more money off of it. Though given the opportunity I’m sure I would try to do it to some extent, not that I also would give back to the consumer in some way. I don’t see how gas prices relate as spending more on gas doesn’t get you anything extra as far as I know (except an empty wallet). But when it comes to paying for a game they can both make more money and provide extra/better support for the game. Seems reasonable to me at least.
And the following is not addressed to anyone specific, but rather a suggestion/possibility:
I am for one, sure that Blizzard will offer free online play for Starcraft 2; however, I’d like to also see a pay to play. An example of this would be to keep a battle.net style of online free-play but in addition offer servers that are pay to play as well. These servers could provide something new or awesome (I don’t know what, I’m sure there are lots of cool features that could be out there. I am not an expert in the area and maybe it’s a shitty idea anyway). The pay to play servers would have this new/awesome thing that players could also do and then also provide the rest of the regular battle.net options, allowing for two servers that people could play on, the free one with less features. The new features would obviously be something that Blizzard would be incurring costs for maintaining, such as the costs for maintaining servers for MMO games.
Wow, long post. Again, I am not meaning to offend (okay a couple I don't care about, but they need to learn to read anyway and probably didn't make it this far) and I'm sorry if I do. I thank anyone who takes the time to actually read my posts and to form thought out opinions or counter-opinions and make an effort to be rational about it.
eventho i have the money no, i wouldnt pay, i rather play other games or continue with SC1, charging for a RTS is stupid and retarded, unless they really offer a kick ass ladder, great bnet interface and a lot a lot of bonus things, if not no chance in hell
Why pay for something that you would otherwise expect for free? semioldguy, i cant believe how retarded you are to actually want a pay to play service. there is next to 0 logical reasons why sc2 should be pay 2 play -RTS are hosted player side -Anti hack and patching are expected unless blizzard wants sc2 to die. Not to mention they've already done it for free in the past for sc -It would destroy the player base. There are people who are lucky enough to have a computer and leaching off someones wireless or something, and then they have to pay an extra 10-15$ a month? And for those it doesnt affect as much, the mere hassle and principle isn't worth it to me.
On June 04 2007 18:32 decafchicken wrote: Why pay for something that you would otherwise expect for free? semioldguy, i cant believe how retarded you are to actually want a pay to play service. there is next to 0 logical reasons why sc2 should be pay 2 play -RTS are hosted player side -Anti hack and patching are expected unless blizzard wants sc2 to die. Not to mention they've already done it for free in the past for sc -It would destroy the player base. There are people who are lucky enough to have a computer and leaching off someones wireless or something, and then they have to pay an extra 10-15$ a month? And for those it doesnt affect as much, the mere hassle and principle isn't worth it to me.
Like I said, something COMPLETELY NEW (as in not things offered for free in the past) for an rts game that would be worth paying for and a ONE-TIME fee would be much more preferable to monthly fees.
I acknowledged that RTS were hosted player side, thats why I mentioned a new feature (and optional), that would be hosted Blizz side and thus have a reason to charge for.
plz lern 2 reed.
You can disagree with me, I have no problem with that. you are entitled to. But please don't make arguements which are already specifically addressed in the post you are arguing against.
Semioldguy: How the hell is a one-time fee different from buying the game?
In addition, the idea of having servers that are free and servers that are pay-to-play is not a practical idea. Hardly anyone would play on the pay-to-play servers. Look at how many people donated money to PGT, which was probably a lot better than anything blizzard would do.
What exactly do you mean by a new feature? I haven't read anything in your posts about what exactly this new feature would be. In fact, I don't think there are any new features I would pay for. All I want in SC2, and probably most other people, is a balanced, skill-intensive RTS with a good ladder and a good system for finding like-skilled opponents. None of these things require money, and if they did I would just play SC.
On June 04 2007 21:27 PJA wrote: Semioldguy: How the hell is a one-time fee different from buying the game?
In addition, the idea of having servers that are free and servers that are pay-to-play is not a practical idea. Hardly anyone would play on the pay-to-play servers. Look at how many people donated money to PGT, which was probably a lot better than anything blizzard would do.
What exactly do you mean by a new feature? I haven't read anything in your posts about what exactly this new feature would be. In fact, I don't think there are any new features I would pay for. All I want in SC2, and probably most other people, is a balanced, skill-intensive RTS with a good ladder and a good system for finding like-skilled opponents. None of these things require money, and if they did I would just play SC.
A one-time fee would keep people from being able to make many many accounts (unless they wanted to dump money into it). So it would matter more in the case of getting banned or things along those lines, which anything that might prevent players from such behavior or make players more wary of their action would improve the average online experience I believe.
I don't know what I mean by a new feature. I'm not a game design genius or anything, but I'm sure given years to work on a agame someone working on it might be able to come up with something really cool. I also admitted that it was maybe a shitty idea anyway. this would obviously be something to entice players into playing on a pay to play server.
On June 02 2007 11:51 [jOyO] wrote: Are people that poor that they cant pay 15 bucks a MONTH???? (which is what it most likely be). save a dallor half the days of every month and you have it.. Im sure if it was pay to play it would be fucking sweet.
So what would we get for that extra $15 a month? The most obvious comparison would be with WC3 in terms of features, but let's compare this to all RTSs on the market now. What would that $15 give us that other RTS games don't already give us for free?
Anti-hack? They already will give us this for free, it is integral to the games success and even if they charged for it there is no guarantee that they can totally eliminate all hacks. WoW still has abuse from what I've heard. There is just higher expectations if we pay.
Better patch support? Again, this is considered standard for most RTS games. If they don't patch it regularly until it's considered "balanced" for the most part it will die.
Tournaments? From what I understand, WC3 already has this for free as well. Perhaps if there is some large prize then they could charge an entry fee.
Good points there, I just dont understand why everyone is so opposed to playing a game where you have to pay 15 a month.
EPT
