|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2010 16:43 Zanez.smarty wrote:
Ugh people need to figure out how capitalism works. They charge what they do for goods (like SC2, the expansions and the microtransactions), for a very good reason. This has very little to do with greed, but mathematics, and profit maximizing. It is all based on CUSTOMER DEMAND.
They can't charge ridiculous amounts for things, because there is a sweet spot for EVERY product and service.
1000 People. How do you sell a game to them and get the most money out of it?
If you charge 20$ for it, all 1000 will buy it
You earn $20,000.
If you charge 40$ for it, 920 will buy it
You earn $36,800.
If you charge 60$ for it, 800 will buy it
You earn $48,000.
If you charge 70$ for it, 680 will buy it.
You earn $47,600.
If you charge 100$ for it, 350 will buy it
You earn $35,000.
If you charge 150$ for it, 100 of them will buy it.
You earn $15,000.
So who is greedier?
The way you people seem to figure it, the guy who charges $150 is the greediest, but even a child can see that the guy who charges $150 for the game is actually earning the least amount of money... The guy who charges 20$ for the game earns more, and everyone considers that person a saint. The person who charges 60$ earns the most money, because they found the sweet spot. That is not greed, it is mathematics, science and marketing all based on customer demand. So if you stop paying for these, then the sweet spot changes, and the prices go down.
Vote with your wallet.
Trust me, Blizzard knows how to do these calculations, and this is why they charge what they do for their products and services.
Of course, there are other factors involved in these... They are most likely charging for name changes on the HIGH END of the scale (read: the one that earns the least money and sells to the least people). Why? Because they DO NOT WANT PEOPLE CHANGING THEIR NAMES. Note, this is not because they want to maximize profits (or they would charge less money for it), but because they want to offer a convenience to people, while minimizing the people who use it. This doesn't look like greed to me... (notice above, the one who charges such a high amount earns very little money compared to the one who charges at the sweet spot)
Two other things that would affect the scale above are if Blizzard was a monopoly (it isn't) and if the product was an essential necessity of life, like food, water or electricity (it isn't).
Come on people... I have never taken an economics or marketing course in my life. This just takes a little logic and common sense.
This guy knows what he's talking about,honestly he got the point.
|
On August 17 2010 16:43 Zanez.smarty wrote:
Come on people... I have never taken an economics or marketing course in my life. This just takes a little logic and common sense.
lol and it shows.
The goal of a supplier is to maximize profits by charging as much as the market will bear, while spending as little as possible to produce. Case in point, they've over-inflated the true value of SC2 with hype and judging by the quality of the final product, most of that $100M dev cost was probably marketing + litigation + anything they could think of, just so they could say: "Look! we've spent $100M, that's how good it is!"
Now they're floating a trial balloon to gauge the market value of name-changing. They may not have a monopoly but there's this thing called "Vendor Lock-in". Look it up, you may learn something.
|
I'd honestly buy a "new character slot" if it meant I could smurf as an offrace without wrecking my ladder for less than $60...
|
On August 17 2010 17:11 junkacc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 16:43 Zanez.smarty wrote:
Come on people... I have never taken an economics or marketing course in my life. This just takes a little logic and common sense. lol and it shows. The goal of a supplier is to maximize profits by charging as much as the market will bear, while spending as little as possible to produce. Case in point, they've over-inflated the true value of SC2 with hype and judging by the quality of the final product, most of that $100M dev cost was probably marketing + litigation + anything they could think of, just so they could say: "Look! we've spent $100M, that's how good it is!" Now they're floating a trial balloon to gauge the market value of name-changing. They may not have a monopoly but there's this thing called "Vendor Lock-in". Look it up, you may learn something.
This is pretty much what I said. As much as the market will bear. Look at my post again.
All your post here is saying is that Blizzard has found a way to raise that sweet spot by adding hype into the mix, increasing the amount of people who will buy the game at a higher price. The same general rules apply... charge too much, and less people buy, charge too little and you don't earn enough money...
There are definitely ways to affect the sweet spot, I never said there weren't.
And yes, this name change could very well be a trial balloon for future services... they need to figure out what that sweet spot is somehow! They don't just randomly throw out numbers and hope they land on the most profitable one.
And how does Vendor Lock-in apply to this situation? Yes I had to look it up, because as I said, I haven't taken any classes in this. But I fail to see what kind of charges or expenses occur from switching from Blizzard. You are not locked in to Starcraft or any Blizzard game for that matter...
Your argument is virtually irrelevant to the name changing thing anyway. My post was written to show that this name change feature is not an act of greed by Blizzard, because it will likely earn a comparatively small amount of money and is put in place to be used by a very minimal amount of people.
|
Vendor lock-in means by changing services you lose all your in-game relationships + win/loss record + reputation etc. It's like changing mobile phone carrier and you can't take your number with you. So if you don't like your name? Tough luck now pay.
But it's nice that you agree that alot of the perceived value of SC2 now is hype.
|
Oh yeah definately. But I find it fun and more than worth the money I payed for it. I am very content. And microtransactions currently do not affect me, so more power to them. When they get forced on us, then I'll be upset as will everyone else. That will lower the sweet spot for future expansions. Bad move until LotV is out.
|
On August 17 2010 17:11 junkacc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 16:43 Zanez.smarty wrote:
Come on people... I have never taken an economics or marketing course in my life. This just takes a little logic and common sense. lol and it shows. The goal of a supplier is to maximize profits by charging as much as the market will bear, while spending as little as possible to produce. Case in point, they've over-inflated the true value of SC2 with hype and judging by the quality of the final product, most of that $100M dev cost was probably marketing + litigation + anything they could think of, just so they could say: "Look! we've spent $100M, that's how good it is!" Now they're floating a trial balloon to gauge the market value of name-changing. They may not have a monopoly but there's this thing called "Vendor Lock-in". Look it up, you may learn something.
This man knows what he is talking about. Also i don't think anybody is complaining about 150 dollars games being greedy, its the fact that what has been free in the past and cost them NOTHING are being labeled as convenient options that hardly cost anymoney. activision blizzard is mastering the art of milking their customers (as a company should) but only fools would not call them greedy for it, because being greedy is their job. They are just lucky there isnt a good competitor that can get in on their market, and that means its us being taken advantage of BIG TIME.
|
Normally, I would not care as these underhanded business tactics are common practise. The thing about this spreading to games though is that a large portion of the audience are teens and young adults who are more susceptable to hype and manipulation. Look at all the kids that run out and buy COD as soon as it hits the shelves even though it's the same game in different packages year after year.
When I was a young man, I wasted alot of time playing games, I know how addictive it can be, but I didn't have to pay through the nose for it. To apply market forces to the supply-demand curve of this is not really taking into account the full picture.
Although I'm the first to hate "think of the children" arguments, in this case I feel it's valid, not for their safety, but exploitation.
|
On August 17 2010 18:12 junkacc wrote:
Normally, I would not care as these underhanded business tactics are common practise. The thing about this spreading to games though is that a large portion of the audience are teens and young adults who are more susceptable to hype and manipulation. Look at all the kids that run out and buy COD as soon as it hits the shelves even though it's the same game in different packages year after year.
When I was a young man, I wasted alot of time playing games, I know how addictive it can be, but I didn't have to pay through the nose for it. To apply market forces to the supply-demand curve of this is not really taking into account the full picture.
Although I'm the first to hate "think of the children" arguments, in this case I feel it's valid, not for their safety, but exploitation.
All kids should be told to play diablo 2. That game has really helped me to mature and not be so gullible. I was like 8 when i played it and i've been scammed, ripped off, hacked, and taken advantage of in everyway possible. But that helped me learn not to trust someone for no reason and question things - all without losing anything valuable ))
|
We cannot change names... okay we have to pay for a name change now, but seriously i'm okay with that - hopefully this will bring us a more socialized experience with the battle.net. All those bm smurfs *god #?$% it...
What i cannot smurf any more? No second account, no name change, how can i train special bo's or even other races ?
Yeah you will say play custom games ... But i'm at #2 in my diamond with zerg, now i want to play Protoss, but hey i never played Protoss in 1v1 so how can i get some dudes on my level? Custom games? Not really, since you cannot change the game name "1v1 Manner only" "1vs1 No noobs" you will get 75% noobs in custom games ...
Here we need an Improvement:
Just an simple option to join the ladder with his own account but with a different race, so you can play as Zerg in y ladder and as Protoss in x ladder ...
What do you think ?
|
On August 17 2010 18:12 junkacc wrote:
Normally, I would not care as these underhanded business tactics are common practise. The thing about this spreading to games though is that a large portion of the audience are teens and young adults who are more susceptable to hype and manipulation. Look at all the kids that run out and buy COD as soon as it hits the shelves even though it's the same game in different packages year after year.
When I was a young man, I wasted alot of time playing games, I know how addictive it can be, but I didn't have to pay through the nose for it. To apply market forces to the supply-demand curve of this is not really taking into account the full picture.
Although I'm the first to hate "think of the children" arguments, in this case I feel it's valid, not for their safety, but exploitation.
I mean I'm going to agree with you here, based off what type of games we play now, I too think the majority of people who shell out $60 each year for a new game with relatively lacking additional features (Madden, COD anyone?) are ridiculous. But that's the model they have set up, you have to have the most current game to be 'competitive' or follow the amount of people playing online, and yes, I think it's overall silly.
The reason I'm not upset at all about this stupid name change thing is because like the other guy said above, its a small fee for a relatively niche market of people who bought SC2. Most people in this thread have the common sense not to pay $10 to change their names, no matter how much they might want to. That's exactly the system Blizzard wants set up for the laddering/smurfing reasons. I sympathize with the low level entry players because I want Starcraft to grow. Anyone who plays Starcraft now, good or bad, remembers innocently getting on battle.net or iccup and getting stomped on by some dude who's smurfing with a 0-0-0 or 0-0 1000 elo record. It sucks, and the no account reset in place now keeps things fair and fun for the largest possible demographic, and doesn't keep the skilled players from being competitive in any way.
And about Blizzard being greedy. Yes, Activision's games are mostly shit (at least in my opinion), Kotick's a douche and their business models are awful. Now, do I care whether Blizzard is greedy as hell? No - and why should anyone else on Teamliquid (the supposed 'growth of esports' notwithstanding)? Blizzard makes the products we want, the more capital going toward them, the more potential for a better product delivered to us. Some say Blizzard has offered us a lower quality product than what they gave us 10-12 years ago. That's up to personal opinion, and obviously bias and nostalgia is going to factor in. (on a side note, I do believe there should be LAN at least. that is bullshit.)
I haven't seen any MMO type pay-to-play business model enter the RTS genre that affects gameplay or player eligibility. So they want you to stay with the same name for reasons the blue post listed, take it for what you will. If you think this is a scheme for vender lock-in, welp, until another company is putting out a game with the quality of Starcraft 2, pretty much everyone here (the hardcore starcraft community) is married to Blizzard regardless. If someone does, then you can happily go play that game, yes? I paid $60 for a game that I personally feel was totally worth it, and I have not (and will not) pay for additional cosmetic things like wings on my thors or the way my name appears to an opponent (yes, I consider it a cosmetic, how is it not). Some people feel the collector's edition price tag was justified, I didn't. That's just the kind of consumer I am. Yeah, what a Blizzard enabler or sheep I am.
About our children - what about the generation before us? What about arcades with .25 and .50 cents a play schemes? Oh yeah, they all died out (at least in America) because pcs and computers caught up to the technology and offered better goods for lower costs. I don't really see this model coming back anytime soon, particularly for competitive rts. You know how isolating that would be to the fan base to pay to ladder? Remember when they announced Real ID for the battle.net forums? That's the kind of noise from the community that tells Blizzard, you can't do this, and that's the worst idea ever. Yes, the Starcraft community has the power to overthrow things like that. If someone's willing to pay to ladder on battle.net, THEY'RE the problem. If the time when paying for ladder ever comes, I'll be picketing alongside you.
|
On August 16 2010 23:04 floor exercise wrote:
I hope to one day be able to pay to have my zealots riding sparkling horses
This hahaha
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
