|
On November 20 2018 22:56 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 21:13 Creager wrote:On November 20 2018 20:07 lestye wrote:On November 20 2018 18:07 insitelol wrote:On November 20 2018 14:52 litLikeBic wrote:On November 20 2018 10:47 brickrd wrote:
i have a couple of counterpoints to the "i want people to see when i have skins" argument
1) why? you're bragging that you spent money? i don't really get what you're "showing off"? do you think buying skins is "impressive" in some way?
2) theoretically, if they COULD be disabled, how would it even affect your experience? you're still sitting there playing the same game and everything looks the same for you. you're literally having less fun because your opponent sees normal units? what?
i mean, i KIND of get it... but on a deeper level i do not get it at all. Same reason you might wear certain clothes to be perceived a certain way; i.e., to control how you are perceived. I do not know why it is so hard for some people in this thread to get that. I thought that it is common knowledge that people are generally superficial and like to show off. Blizz know this and that, consequently, they will make more money by not having a disable option, so you will NEVER get such an option. What do they "know"? Have anyone done the calculations? And how could he if noone tested it? Having no "disable" button is just a consequence of blizzard being totally indifferent on the matter. The only good thing about skins is the higher you get the less skin abusers you actually encounter, as all "show-offers" dwell in 2s, 3s and leagues corresponding to their levels. Motivates to grind games. It's not just Blizzard, it's EVERYONE I can think of. Hence why no game that offer skins offers that option, whether it to be Dota 2, Street Fighter V, League of Legends, Path of Exile, CS:GO, Warframe, Rainbow 6, Fortnite, etc. Well, you apparently fail to see the differing impact skins have in these games: Dota 2/LoL - MOBA games with a lot less unit cluttering/makes it way easier to differentiate between 5 enemy heroes Street Fighter - fighting game with only two characters on screen at a time, focus lies on learning animation frames to react accordingly Path of Exile - really, such a shitty example to come up with in this regard, but ok. Co-op hack’n’slay game, literally nothing competitive about it CS:GO - FPS with weapon skins/gloves(facepalm), literally 0 impact on competitive play, weird that valve didn’t implement a plethora of character skins, yet, maybe, because that would not sit that well with the competitive players?! And all of these games except CS:GO are f2p and were designed to be from the start, I see SC2 in a separate category because of the nature of the game and it should be treated as such. Oh, and SC:R has skins in it, but also an option to disable them/replace them with the standard sprite, just saying. Actually, as you mentioned it. Almost all of the competetive games include MTs as a part on their monetization system because the games are free. I payed for my copy of SC2 3 times. Now they are adding chests and skins to keep the game alive and im all for that, but can't at least those who purchased the game have such an option? I can even pay a 4rth time for this. The sole fact BW has it and SC2 does not doesn't make any sense.
Thank you, that’s what I’ve been trying to convey, it’s not like I hate them monetizing the game by altering the business model around it to sustain tournament funding etc.(another topic), I’d even rather pay a ‘fee’ to turn MTX stuff off entirely, but they really should give it to players, just because.
|
So, according to your logic we should just accept this behaviour and give in/move on? I strongly disagree and will continue to voice my discontent with this situation on every relevant occasion possible.
Edit: I’d also like to add that “value” is such a subjective term, especially for a digital item, and what does it even mean in your context? Personal value for the buyer, because he thinks he has obtained an item of unbelievable scarcity? Or value for the seller since the forced display of such items has the potential of increasing sales?
From my personal experience I can tell you that people who dislike skins to begin with are not more likely to spend money on them just because they are forced to see them.
What I meant is pretty simple really, as long as there are people who will only spend money if the skins are forcibly visible than that aspect has value, even if the vast majority doesn't value it.
For blizzard the equation becomes really simple, if they showed it only to the player who bought it, their loosing revenue, and the choice for them becomes obvious, this is not a starcraft problem.
It's just standard economics, at the end of the day Blizzard makes more money showing the skins than the other way around. And the proof is Blizzard implements it the way it is now.
If it was not profitable they would've changed it instead of doubling down, which is what they are doing by making the next sets of skins the buildings.
|
On November 20 2018 21:54 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 21:35 Bazik wrote:
I don't get why people are still discussing this, let's see if I can help a bit more.
Having other players be forced to see the skin one player bought adds value to the purchase, hence the idea of players being able to disable that option devalues the whole sale. Hence what you guys are arguing for is devaluing the skins.
I understand you guys don't like it, but the reality is this is still a business and blizzard will always try to cram the highest amount of value in their products, specialy like in this case where it costs them nothing. So, according to your logic we should just accept this behaviour and give in/move on? I strongly disagree and will continue to voice my discontent with this situation on every relevant occasion possible. [...]
Yes. Accept it and get on with your life.
|
Just one quick question since I havent played in 4 years. Does buying warchest unlocks ranked ladder? If I purchase it for new account. Thx.
|
On December 17 2018 00:53 ZeRoX_TV wrote:
Just one quick question since I havent played in 4 years. Does buying warchest unlocks ranked ladder? If I purchase it for new account. Thx.
Yes it does! Probably the best way to unlock ranked if you are only interested in multiplayer and don't want to wait for 10 days.
|
On December 17 2018 01:04 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2018 00:53 ZeRoX_TV wrote:
Just one quick question since I havent played in 4 years. Does buying warchest unlocks ranked ladder? If I purchase it for new account. Thx. Yes it does! Probably the best way to unlock ranked if you are only interested in multiplayer and don't want to wait for 10 days.
Yes, thats exactly why I am asking. Thanks!
|
|
|
I can't get the building skins, wasn't it supposed to be yesterday with 4.8.0?
|
I dont see warchest4 at blizz shop at all
|
the skins are ingame but you still don't see at shop.
edit: consoles look sick. terran special forces, zerg simulant and protoss forged
|
Because of this bullshit with the skins I'll never start SC2 again. Not until they add a feature to disable them ingame.
Fuck off Blizzard!
|
Wow, BlueStar, that is definitely an overreaction. The skins are fine, honestly. I for one - as a on/off player, admittedly - enjoy the fresh look.
|
I would mind having skines which others cannot see. Also, for tournaments, caster should be able to turn them off.
I see them ingame but it was told it will be 9,99e per race and you can buy now like 4 units for that money. I guess we have to wait War Chest 4 to be on shop site.
|
8751 Posts
On November 21 2018 00:15 Bazik wrote:Show nested quote +So, according to your logic we should just accept this behaviour and give in/move on? I strongly disagree and will continue to voice my discontent with this situation on every relevant occasion possible.
Edit: I’d also like to add that “value” is such a subjective term, especially for a digital item, and what does it even mean in your context? Personal value for the buyer, because he thinks he has obtained an item of unbelievable scarcity? Or value for the seller since the forced display of such items has the potential of increasing sales?
From my personal experience I can tell you that people who dislike skins to begin with are not more likely to spend money on them just because they are forced to see them. What I meant is pretty simple really, as long as there are people who will only spend money if the skins are forcibly visible than that aspect has value, even if the vast majority doesn't value it. For blizzard the equation becomes really simple, if they showed it only to the player who bought it, their loosing revenue, and the choice for them becomes obvious, this is not a starcraft problem. It's just standard economics, at the end of the day Blizzard makes more money showing the skins than the other way around. And the proof is Blizzard implements it the way it is now. If it was not profitable they would've changed it instead of doubling down, which is what they are doing by making the next sets of skins the buildings.
People make this argument all the time: corporations exist to make money therefore if they could be doing something differently to make more money, they would be. It is nonsense. Not everything with a purpose is perfect at achieving that purpose. Just having a purpose doesn't mean that you are behaving in perfect alignment with it. No human endeavor is perfect like that.
Blizzard doesn't know if they'd make more money, about the same amount of money, or less money by changing the way skins work. They haven't tried it.
I can only speak for myself. When I buy the warchest, I only ever buy the protoss warchest. Like most players, I only play one race, so buying skins for other races is completely useless to me. If my skin preferences applied to both my units and my opponents' units, I'd shop for terran and zerg skins.
In addition to that, again only speaking for myself, skins have discouraged me from playing. I only play here and there and when I do play, I cannot recognize units at a glance. I simply don't play enough to have learned all of the skins. This makes me play the game even less. If my skin preferences applied to both my units and my opponents' units, I'd play the game more.
Blizzard would prefer it if I shopped for zerg and terran skins and if I played the game more. It'd make their corporation more valuable.
|
If they're worried about losing money they should just lock the option to disable skins behind a paywall.
|
On December 20 2018 01:40 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2018 00:15 Bazik wrote:So, according to your logic we should just accept this behaviour and give in/move on? I strongly disagree and will continue to voice my discontent with this situation on every relevant occasion possible.
Edit: I’d also like to add that “value” is such a subjective term, especially for a digital item, and what does it even mean in your context? Personal value for the buyer, because he thinks he has obtained an item of unbelievable scarcity? Or value for the seller since the forced display of such items has the potential of increasing sales?
From my personal experience I can tell you that people who dislike skins to begin with are not more likely to spend money on them just because they are forced to see them. What I meant is pretty simple really, as long as there are people who will only spend money if the skins are forcibly visible than that aspect has value, even if the vast majority doesn't value it. For blizzard the equation becomes really simple, if they showed it only to the player who bought it, their loosing revenue, and the choice for them becomes obvious, this is not a starcraft problem. It's just standard economics, at the end of the day Blizzard makes more money showing the skins than the other way around. And the proof is Blizzard implements it the way it is now. If it was not profitable they would've changed it instead of doubling down, which is what they are doing by making the next sets of skins the buildings. People make this argument all the time: corporations exist to make money therefore if they could be doing something differently to make more money, they would be. It is nonsense. Not everything with a purpose is perfect at achieving that purpose. Just having a purpose doesn't mean that you are behaving in perfect alignment with it. No human endeavor is perfect like that. Blizzard doesn't know if they'd make more money, about the same amount of money, or less money by changing the way skins work. They haven't tried it. I can only speak for myself. When I buy the warchest, I only ever buy the protoss warchest. Like most players, I only play one race, so buying skins for other races is completely useless to me. If my skin preferences applied to both my units and my opponents' units, I'd shop for terran and zerg skins. In addition to that, again only speaking for myself, skins have discouraged me from playing. I only play here and there and when I do play, I cannot recognize units at a glance. I simply don't play enough to have learned all of the skins. This makes me play the game even less. If my skin preferences applied to both my units and my opponents' units, I'd play the game more. Blizzard would prefer it if I shopped for zerg and terran skins and if I played the game more. It'd make their corporation more valuable.
You can argue all you want but it's imo a fact (again: imo) that people want their skins to be seen by the opponent. That's the ONLY reason for many players: to show off.
If the opponent can disable skins people could just modify their client to show the skins they want without paying money. Like in the old days.
Do you really have such a big problem recognizing a unit when it's using a skin? I play SC2 since release (so no skins) and never ever had a problem recognizing a unit with another skin.
Plus I never heard a pro even mention this. Nobody seems to have problems with skins except for a few players who vent in forums like this.
I don't use skins and still want no option to disable skins. I like the little variety the skins offer and like mentioned above strongly believe SC2 makes more money like it is now. Your argument is legit but just holds on for a little fraction of players I think.
|
To me Twitch drops are just gonna reinforce even more the "E-sport as marketing" kind of immature way that western game companies handle e-sport by dragging games on top of trending.
|
Warchest Katowice 2019 will be available on (your phone) Dec. 21.
|
Czech Republic12133 Posts
On December 20 2018 04:23 Doink wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2018 01:40 NonY wrote:On November 21 2018 00:15 Bazik wrote:So, according to your logic we should just accept this behaviour and give in/move on? I strongly disagree and will continue to voice my discontent with this situation on every relevant occasion possible.
Edit: I’d also like to add that “value” is such a subjective term, especially for a digital item, and what does it even mean in your context? Personal value for the buyer, because he thinks he has obtained an item of unbelievable scarcity? Or value for the seller since the forced display of such items has the potential of increasing sales?
From my personal experience I can tell you that people who dislike skins to begin with are not more likely to spend money on them just because they are forced to see them. What I meant is pretty simple really, as long as there are people who will only spend money if the skins are forcibly visible than that aspect has value, even if the vast majority doesn't value it. For blizzard the equation becomes really simple, if they showed it only to the player who bought it, their loosing revenue, and the choice for them becomes obvious, this is not a starcraft problem. It's just standard economics, at the end of the day Blizzard makes more money showing the skins than the other way around. And the proof is Blizzard implements it the way it is now. If it was not profitable they would've changed it instead of doubling down, which is what they are doing by making the next sets of skins the buildings. People make this argument all the time: corporations exist to make money therefore if they could be doing something differently to make more money, they would be. It is nonsense. Not everything with a purpose is perfect at achieving that purpose. Just having a purpose doesn't mean that you are behaving in perfect alignment with it. No human endeavor is perfect like that. Blizzard doesn't know if they'd make more money, about the same amount of money, or less money by changing the way skins work. They haven't tried it. I can only speak for myself. When I buy the warchest, I only ever buy the protoss warchest. Like most players, I only play one race, so buying skins for other races is completely useless to me. If my skin preferences applied to both my units and my opponents' units, I'd shop for terran and zerg skins. In addition to that, again only speaking for myself, skins have discouraged me from playing. I only play here and there and when I do play, I cannot recognize units at a glance. I simply don't play enough to have learned all of the skins. This makes me play the game even less. If my skin preferences applied to both my units and my opponents' units, I'd play the game more. Blizzard would prefer it if I shopped for zerg and terran skins and if I played the game more. It'd make their corporation more valuable. You can argue all you want but it's imo a fact (again: imo) that people want their skins to be seen by the opponent. That's the ONLY reason for many players: to show off. If the opponent can disable skins people could just modify their client to show the skins they want without paying money. Like in the old days. Do you really have such a big problem recognizing a unit when it's using a skin? I play SC2 since release (so no skins) and never ever had a problem recognizing a unit with another skin. Plus I never heard a pro even mention this. Nobody seems to have problems with skins except for a few players who vent in forums like this. I don't use skins and still want no option to disable skins. I like the little variety the skins offer and like mentioned above strongly believe SC2 makes more money like it is now. Your argument is legit but just holds on for a little fraction of players I think.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure, it's not like Scarlett didn't request a reset because skins are banned at tournaments 
|
i honestly don't get why you can't disable them.
is there really a such big amount of players that only buy skins for others to see?
i for example use only 2-3 because i honestly like their look, but i don't care if my opponent sees them. people keep on bringing the "people would stop buying" argument, but from the fraction i can read here on TL, its not that many i think.
plus, with the option of custom skins for both sides, would that not be an even greater reason to buy all skins, so that i could have my very own look for my opponents as well, which means i would possibly buy skins for all races?
as mentioned above, you could even make the option a purcase in itself, so again more money is made.
for me, there are more points pro custom skins on both sides than cons (if any), but i still wouldn't buy to much (i don't like the money beeing used to blow up the already biggest tournaments), so maybe my opinon isn't the one to follow here
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
