EPTPay to Play? - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TiQ.SinGi
Norway385 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Maybe it works for all those nerdy MMORPGers who value their items over money. but this just wont work for an RTS. PS- all you idiots saying 'Oh I'd pay for this, but not that" STFU, BLIZZARD READS THIS FORUM! You honestly wanna tell blizzard how much to charge you extra? | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
| ||
|
dcoi_wot
Philippines5 Posts
HELL NO..................!!!! | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
thats a billion dollar industry they could probably provide them for free and live off the ads | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36388 Posts
would you trade 1 movie a month to play BW on really great updated servers, more patches, leagues, more features, more support from blizzard? its a fucking easy choice, i'd pay in an instant everyone is all hung up about paying because they didn't charge for bnet before | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On June 05 2007 18:10 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: dont you guys all pay to go to the movies and stuff? thats a billion dollar industry they could probably provide them for free and live off the ads Yeah. I pay 10 bucks to buy a movie. I watch the movie over and over again for free. If I think it really benefits from seeing in the theatre (Extremely rare) then I will pay a one time fee to watch it. Honestly. Does anyone here rent the same movie over, and over and over again? Or go to the theater to watch the same movie over and over and over again? The movie analogy is broken | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20090 Posts
On June 05 2007 08:10 Element)LoGiC wrote: Um... you people realize that sc ISN'T doing so well, right? I don't consider getting hacked in every public game I join, or the abuse, or disconnecting like in abyss, or having no ladder for almost a year like wgtour to be well. The majority of the community is bottom-feeding scum. They don't have to pay for the hundreds of accounts they win-bot or the ones they use to get online with their friends and hack on BGH/Fastest. Most of the people playing this game right now are BGH/Fastest/Umsing high school kids that smoke pot, and drop out of high school to go work in a trade. Because of this, I think people should have a one-time fee on every account they make. Blizzard is making a killing off of Warcrack, I don't think they'll notice all of the lost revenue from the above demographic. It would be awesome if there wasn't so much server workload due to winbotting, and name spamming. Have you seen those bots that go into channels to spam? Hundreds of them. Battle.net is in a very bad state right now. You need to start taking into consideration what the majority of the community actually is, instead of complaining about how small it will be if you had to pay. Starcraft isnt doing well...lol? Do i even need to bring up the numbers? You dont get hacked in every public game you join. I seldom get hacked, unless i'm unknowingly being maphacked. And the people worth playing are the ones that dont hack in the first place. I dont see your point on bgh/fastest/umsing having to do anything with pay to play I think my parents would laugh at me if i asked them for a credit card so i can register an account for a game i already shelled out 50+ for. Not to mention the mild hassle of having to do it in the first place. Server workload...sc is player side, this has been stated before. durrrrrr Hundreds of spambots...each public channel tops out at 40 people, in which 1-3 tops are bots. And you're probably retarded if stay in public channels anyway. | ||
ManaBlue
Canada10458 Posts
On June 05 2007 19:38 Hot_Bid wrote: yeah seriously, you guys are acting as if $5-10 a month really is that much would you trade 1 movie a month to play BW on really great updated servers, more patches, leagues, more features, more support from blizzard? its a fucking easy choice, i'd pay in an instant everyone is all hung up about paying because they didn't charge for bnet before The only part that this arguement is missing is that a user fee will reduce the number of players that are available/online. Perhaps not so much in the early going, but a game with a monthly fee to play online will never have the longevity that BW has had. So once the game isn't new anymore, people will move on and the game will die. I don't like that aspect of the pay to play. Would I pay to play? Yes, absolutely... until my activity with the game slows, at which point I'll stop and...never play again? Nuts to that. Even if it turned out to be a very marginal expense, like 100 bucks per year in monthly fees, no one is going to pay that for a decade, which will kill the game.  | ||
|
vicml21
Canada165 Posts
On June 05 2007 08:10 Element)LoGiC wrote: Um... you people realize that sc ISN'T doing so well, right? I don't consider getting hacked in every public game I join, or the abuse, or disconnecting like in abyss, or having no ladder for almost a year like wgtour to be well. The majority of the community is bottom-feeding scum. They don't have to pay for the hundreds of accounts they win-bot or the ones they use to get online with their friends and hack on BGH/Fastest. Most of the people playing this game right now are BGH/Fastest/Umsing high school kids that smoke pot, and drop out of high school to go work in a trade. Because of this, I think people should have a one-time fee on every account they make. Blizzard is making a killing off of Warcrack, I don't think they'll notice all of the lost revenue from the above demographic. It would be awesome if there wasn't so much server workload due to winbotting, and name spamming. Have you seen those bots that go into channels to spam? Hundreds of them. Battle.net is in a very bad state right now. You need to start taking into consideration what the majority of the community actually is, instead of complaining about how small it will be if you had to pay. I think SC IS doing pretty well considering its almost a 10 year old game, and still has a large progaming scene (even if mainly in korea), as well as many different games available on bnet. I see just as much melees played on maps used by progamers (ie reverse temple, longinus, luna, etc) as opposed to melees played on BGH or Fastest. Maybe not in a certain realm, but they do exist. Just because one realm (ie Europe or US East) doesnt have certain games being played as often doesnt that those games arent being played at all. I havent had problems with hackers in a LONG time (last time I did was on a money map, and that was a LONG time ago). I join melee games all the time, have no problems with hackers or disconnections (at least for melees, for ums there might be someone who lags). Who cares about wins vs losses anyway, unless for your league/ladder? If you win, thats good, if you lose, practise and try harder. if you only care about wins, play nothing but a computer all the time, or 7v1 comp stomps. I care more about the fun in playing the game, than whatever my record says. I, personally, wouldnt mind any costs blizzard is willing to implement, I have no complaints, but if SC2 were pay 2 play, I dont think it would be as popular as SC, which is still widely played today. I was merely thinking more along the lines of ways Blizz could make money they need for SC2 stuff, while at the same time not deterring those unwilling to pay as much as others for the maximum experience. I admit, I have had more than one account, but I dont think that warrants a pay per username. I dont mind the "use your account once every 3 months or it will be deleted". For SC, I dont think you need to save THAT MUCH information on servers that it would require a pay for each username created. Its not like 75% of the users on bnet create new accounts daily. If SC2 were to store more information that would result in problems with many useless accounts, let them assign one account to a cd key, so that to create a new account you would need to delete your old one, or get a new cd key. EDIT: the dude above me pretty much wrote down what I feel in a fraction of the size. Only diff is that I would pay2play as long as I have a job and Im not in serious debt. im a pretty big SC fan lol. | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
| ||
|
stLm
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On June 05 2007 21:45 CubEdIn wrote: Guys, is this even an issue? I mean you pay for World of Warcraft because they're constantly working on improving the game by adding new levels, new areas, etc. They're constantly improving the game. This won't happen with StarCraft. Don't mistake a patch that fixes bugs with a patch that adds an area, new items, etc. They will add new units, the new race and better weapons with each patch for sure  and of course if you pay more you will have heroes for mele games.Seriously i cant understand why some people think that starcraft 2 (RTS) is like WOW (MMORPG) starcraft will only need to be updated with few patches so the money you will pay monthly >>>>>>> Vivendi shareholders only. Your 10 $(?) wont be used for starcraft. When i started to play about 10 years the games were cheaper ( ok nowadays it costs more to create ) but also often better (btw). Why should i pay a monthly fee? And why not a weekly fee for warcraft 4 ? Oh yea that is really cool... | ||
|
Zironic
Sweden341 Posts
On June 06 2007 03:24 Boblion wrote: They will add new units, the new race and better weapons with each patch for sure and of course if you pay more you will have heroes for mele games.Seriously i cant understand why some people think that starcraft 2 (RTS) is like WOW (MMORPG) starcraft will only need to be updated with few patches so the money you will pay monthly >>>>>>> Vivendi shareholders only. Your 10 $(?) wont be used for starcraft. When i started to play about 10 years the games were cheaper ( ok nowadays it costs more to create ) but also often better (btw). Why should i pay a monthly fee? And why not a weekly fee for warcraft 4 ? Oh yea that is really cool... World of Warcraft has a monthly fee because everything is hosted on blizzard servers that are quite expensive to run. The extra content is supposed to be financed by the expansions. For a fee for Starcraft 2 to make sense Battle.Net would have to be the host of all games played over battle.net (custom and ladder) and release several new maps and units each month. I think this is unlikely ^^. It wouldn't surprise me though if they make battle.net for Starcraft 2 a two tiered service. First everyone gets a basic service like the one in BW or WC3 and if you pay extra you might get access to more advanced tools. Another feasible thing is just a one time fee for each new account you create, wouldn't have to be big, maybe $5. Would stop the people that keep making new accounts >.< | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On June 05 2007 20:01 fusionsdf wrote: Yeah. I pay 10 bucks to buy a movie. I watch the movie over and over again for free. If I think it really benefits from seeing in the theatre (Extremely rare) then I will pay a one time fee to watch it. Honestly. Does anyone here rent the same movie over, and over and over again? Or go to the theater to watch the same movie over and over and over again? The movie analogy is broken Ehh who watches the same movie 9 years day in day out.. the point is that SC will give you so much pleasure that to me it's EASILY and I mean really, really easily worth paying for. The comparison to movies is not in seeing it but in the fact that you pay for something you enjoy. If it makes you feel better try comparing it to bowling, where you pay every time you want to play. Well I enjoy SC more than anything so I would definitely not mind paying for that. I'm not saying that paying is a good thing but I think you guys are definitely being unfair here. Red Alert also costs $60 just like SC2 but you'll only play the missions of that and then be done with it. | ||
|
Zironic
Sweden341 Posts
On June 06 2007 06:20 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Ehh who watches the same movie 9 years day in day out.. the point is that SC will give you so much pleasure that to me it's EASILY and I mean really, really easily worth paying for. The comparison to movies is not in seeing it but in the fact that you pay for something you enjoy. If it makes you feel better try comparing it to bowling, where you pay every time you want to play. Well I enjoy SC more than anything so I would definitely not mind paying for that. I'm not saying that paying is a good thing but I think you guys are definitely being unfair here. Red Alert also costs $60 just like SC2 but you'll only play the missions of that and then be done with it. The thing is that battle.net doesn't supply a very valuable service as such. It's quite easy for people to host their own battle.net if they want and bypass a monthly subscription fee. Any subscription fee has to include something worth paying for that you don't already have. | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
| ||
|
Hovden
Bulgaria29 Posts
| ||
| ||
