Microtransactions: Selling in-game content for real money

[ArcherofAiur]

Yesterday Blizzard began selling in-game pets for real money. They both cost 10 dollars (50% of the panda revenue goes to charity). http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/news/?d=2009-11#41500

Would you approve or disapprove of Blizzard selling SC2 in-game content for money? Perhaps a new UED skin for terran, a female ghost model or tribal decals for Protoss? Maybe a new terran tileset, map pack (like halo) or extra B.Net features?


Please state why or why not?

[Norfindel]

I think that could affect readability, which could impact gameplay.

I think they're free to sell everything that doesn't impacts gameplay. If it does, that would be a bad idea.

[ArcherofAiur]

I think that could affect readability, which could impact gameplay.

I think they're free to sell everything that doesn't impacts gameplay. If it does, that would be a bad idea.

So if they sell you a female ghost that only appears on your computer (opponent sees male version) then its ok? Or if the model is only avalible in non-competitive games and/or the map editor its ok?

[Gifted]

I personally find micro transactions no problem whatsoever. Your example of in game pets is one of many features that World of Warcraft has included as micro transactions. From Name Changes, to character customization to realm changes. The reality of the nature is, features came that people had a demand for and Blizzard provided supply.

Blizzard is going to be providing two things. Free content and pay for content. I'm fine with this model. People will still get the support they want such as patch updates and a better battle.net experience and that will be free and there is no change on that. They are also going to offer trivial improvements to the experience that people can pay for. There are AT LEAST 5 sources stating that if you pay for it, it doesn't effect game play. I feel this is a good model with no issues. I've been playing WoW for 5 years and I've never used their microtransation model. The features are great for some people, but Blizzard has ensured there is more than enough free content that I don't need to pay for the little extras. We're not going to be looking at 10-15 dollars for a decal change as well... More likely 1-3.

Also, I think it's a little melodramatic by ending your message with "this is important"... This conversation won't change anything, it's merely chit chat and sharing of opinions. ^^

[ArcherofAiur]

There are AT LEAST 5 sources stating that if you pay for it, it doesn't effect game play.

Define "doesnt effect gameplay".



And I consider microtransactions to be an extremely important topic. But Ill remove that line so it doesnt seem melodramatic.

[Blazur]

If people want to spend money on nonsensical things like skins or avatars let them, but it's something I cannot justify. In the end I guess it doesn't bother me, because those willing to dish out the money are possibly contributing to the developers and helping them fine-tune the game.

As far as the map micro transactions go...not sure how I feel about it. At the core it doesn't bother me, provided it doesn't impact my experience on B.NET. If I'm finding my game list flooded with games that use a purchased map, which can only be joined after purchasing said map...then that will get pretty irritating. Theoretically, any map requiring a purchase should not show in your list unless you've purchased it and have rights to use it.

[Norfindel]

So if they sell you a female ghost that only appears on your computer (opponent sees male version) then its ok? Or if the model is only avalible in non-competitive games and/or the map editor its ok?
I suppose, specially if it affect's your units only. If it affects the way you see enemy units, model changes could make something more obvious, and probably that can change gameplay.

Still, i wonder how they can show different unit models in different computers, as wouldn't that affect collision sizes? Their models would need to have the same size, or smaller.



As far as the map micro transactions go...not sure how I feel about it. At the core it doesn't bother me, provided it doesn't impact my experience on B.NET. If I'm finding my game list flooded with games that use a purchased map, which can only be joined after purchasing said map...then that will get pretty irritating. Theoretically, any map requiring a purchase should not show in your list unless you've purchased it and have rights to use it.
I agree.

[Gifted]

If people want to spend money on nonsensical things like skins or avatars let them, but it's something I cannot justify. In the end I guess it doesn't bother me, because those willing to dish out the money are possibly contributing to the developers and helping them fine-tune the game.

As far as the map micro transactions go...not sure how I feel about it. At the core it doesn't bother me, provided it doesn't impact my experience on B.NET. If I'm finding my game list flooded with games that use a purchased map, which can only be joined after purchasing said map...then that will get pretty irritating. Theoretically, any map requiring a purchase should not show in your list unless you've purchased it and have rights to use it.First paragraph: Same page.
Second Paragraph: I looked closely as the provided screenshots, and I think they'll have a filter to remove games you are unable to play due to this. This is merely speculation, but one I would suspect is correct. Some people might want to turn this filter off to see what games are popular if they got a few bucks they want to spend...


I suppose, specially if it affect's your units only. If it affects the way you see enemy units, model changes could make something more obvious, and probably that can change gameplay.

Still, i wonder how they can show different unit models in different computers, as wouldn't that affect collision sizes? Their models would need to have the same size, or smaller.In World of Warcraft, earlier versions, there were ways to change the local graphic files on your computer to change skins. Since World of Warcraft grabs it's "Data" from your computer but transacts information to the server, there is a way that the data on your computer can be different than another. The only reason why this doesn't happen in WC3 for example, is that battle.net does a check on the map, if maps are different, then download map so that everyone has the same local data. They can't do this with WoW due to the immense file size. Things that were pulled off was a "Panda bear form" for druids instead of the generic one. Only the person with the changed data file could see it, the rest saw a bear because that was the local image that was referenced on their computer. While the image may have changed locally, it was merely a change of skin, no one could change the model or it's collision due to restricted code and functions. They later restricted functions for skin changes... resolving the unintended issues. (I haven't been following the issue fully, but this is correct to my limited knowledge)

If they built in a way to change the local data files on SC2 as part of the interface.. and go so far as to have a server check every time it was accessed (such as a game start) I suspect it could happen either way. It could be visible to only you... or they could allow it to be visible to all to improve the "brag factor" that they stated when introducing decals. Your personal avatar would probably not be a factor and therefore not gameplay changing at all.

My personal opinion, if a Viking has a decal on the shoulder that's the team color. One viking has an arm brandishing a whip.. and another has a neat ion cannon outline instead... my game play isn't changing, cause all I'll truly care about is that my viking is blowing the shit out of their probe line. (Which also kinda answers Archer's game question)

[Extranjero]

Would you approve or disapprove of Blizzard selling SC2 in-game content for money?

Just wanted to point out that this is not a yes/no question. :P

[Blazur]

Would you approve or disapprove of Blizzard selling SC2 in-game content for money?

Given the fact that they're already splitting the game into 3, possibly 4, expansions that would just be a kick in the balls. But then again they're getting away with it in WoW so it wouldn't be surprising to see.

[Pandonetho]

I wouldn't care to be honest, as long as it isn't like those stupid free games where you pay for uber gear and own everyone else.

Make it all aesthetics or something, nothing that directly impacts gameplay.

[supersonic]

I fully support in-game content for sale in games as long as it wouldn't have gotten in the game by itself, so it must be actual EXTRA content, I don't mind at all.


I wouldn't care to be honest, as long as it isn't like those stupid free games where you pay for uber gear and own everyone else.

Make it all aesthetics or something, nothing that directly impacts gameplay.

And also this, shouldn't be game play breaking, and should be mostly aesthetics, titles, etc.

[Triceron]

Maps are another thing that I can see used in the microtransactions, such as a special side campaign Blizzard did that was such high quality (voiceworked, scripted, cinematic) that they decide to put it up for say $10, something worth at least 4 hours of gameplay and lots of replay value.

They've given things like Rexxar's Campaign for free in the past, but games are getting more and more costly to create. Even seeing them introduce new unit models over time through mini campaigns would be awesome.

However if they're charging $10 for anything less than that, it's going to be hell. If I pay for new content, I expect to see new content, not just something anyone can make out of the editor.

[sandwich_bird]

Would you approve or disapprove of Blizzard selling SC2 in-game content for money?

Just wanted to point out that this is not a yes/no question. :P Yeah for god sake. Does yes means I approve? I will assume that this is the case and will vote no. Fuck those craps. I pay for a full game and I don't want to give more money away for little shits.

[Equiliari]

As a game developer in training... I have recently learned first hand how large a potential microtransactions have.
I do not mind microtransactions in SCII, let the ones that want to pay for exclusive stuff do so. I might even do it as well if there are things I like. (Thus I voted "some types")

Moreso, I largly approve of their donations to charity with this.

[Xyvik]

Considering the precedent Valve set in all their free stuff for TF2, I find paying for decals completely absurd. However, Valve is their own beast and better for it.

I am against it in principle until I see what they'd charge, and what they'd offer. Then I'd see.

As a game developer with a game coming in the next two years I also see the potential. If I ever offer Micros in my game it would have to be cheap and something worthwhile. With SC2 it has to follow the same pattern. Giving people new units for cash would totally screw the game over backwards, so if they ever did that then I would immediately and strongly object.

[newcomplex]

No, not because I'm against the idea itself, but in an environment like starcraft, it just detriments the modding enviroment, or becomes useless to a point where it is unmarketable. I will literally not buy starcraft2 if they go an all out MW2 scenario where modding is banned altogether (which is not going to happen), but selling custom skins etc will be pointless because one can already add custom skins to basic melee play by modifying the gamefiles (so in order to allow it, they would have to ban it). Assuming open modding is established, any mappack blizzard trys to sell will go unnoticed unless it approaches the quality for a full blown sequel/alternate game

[ragsash]

map pack (like halo) or extra B.Net features?


Please state why or why not?

most of the random Bull they would prolly sell like avatars skins and whatnot noway.
but if they would make like topp 15 maps that costs, but as a extra price like 20% cheaper or more etc.
as they alrdy stated they will sell maps and its gonna support those map makers who work hard so why not.

[newcomplex]

most of the random Bull they would prolly sell like avatars skins and whatnot noway.
but if they would make like topp 15 maps that costs, but as a extra price like 20% cheaper or more etc.
as they alrdy stated they will sell maps and its gonna support those map makers who work hard so why not.

Selling maps will be a decision of the mod-maker not blizzard, and the quality the maps will have to be will probably approach a full fledged game more then a map. (Blizzard said that nothing released in wc3 was good enough for them to allow it to be sold)

[imdrunkontea]

I think it's a good idea. The people buying the non-essential extra fluff will be happy, Blizz will have more money (hopefully to develop more free content/patches), and the people who want nothing to do with it still get essential gameplay features for free.

[rcp181]

Yeah for god sake. Does yes means I approve? I will assume that this is the case and will vote no. Fuck those craps. I pay for a full game and I don't want to give more money away for little shits.Yeah. The poll is messed up >.<

I honestly don't care either way about micro transactions as long as it's the fluff like they've had on WoW and not major stuff we deserve when we buy the game.

[Equiliari]

Giving people new units for cash would totally screw the game over backwards, so if they ever did that then I would immediately and strongly object.

Yes, if blizzard does this, something is wrong. Gameplay should NOT be affected in any way.
Things like non combat pets, new decals and new team colors or models on units would be nice... Orperhaps new unit models for UMS maps.

There is one RTS game thou, that uses micro transaction where you buy "cards" to get better... Don't remember its name, anyone got a clue?

Ooh, and didnt blizz say something about selling maps? Imsure they will ger revinue, but then again, the map mapker gets a cut as well.

[newcomplex]

Yes, if blizzard does this, something is wrong. Gameplay should NOT be affected in any way.
Things like non combat pets, new decals and new team colors or models on units would be nice... Orperhaps new unit models for UMS maps.

There is one RTS game thou, that uses micro transaction where you buy "cards" to get better... Don't remember its name, anyone got a clue?

My issue with micro transactions is that it...monetizes...everything...duh.

Now, whenever blizzard makes new content, they will now be like "Hey, lets charge for this by throwing it to the store". Starcraft recieved over 50 UMS's for absolutely free, and the frozen throne expansion released a fully voiced hero-rpg campaign as well as 25+ maps for free. Now, with the blizz store, their is a strong possibility that blizzard will just choose to charge us for those things. Things that were previously free.

Their is inherently nothing wrong with charging for content we're willing to pay for, but honestly, PC gamers will be reluctant to give out this free defining features that they have become used to, and have been given to them like a right for 15 years running.

And honestly, anyone idea that's getting between me and free quality gameplay is getting t-downed.

[SaharaDrac]

Hey, whaddya know, Blizzard fans putting the most negative spin possible on something. Shocking.

Think about $5 bonus campaigns. Think about new single player units. Think about incentives for map makers to hire teams and create high-quality products.

[Nicol Bolas]

selling custom skins etc will be pointless because one can already add custom skins to basic melee play by modifying the gamefiles (so in order to allow it, they would have to ban it).

They're going to have to do that anyway to prevent cheating. You can't let people modify what their client shows them willy-nilly and still say you have a fair game.


Their is inherently nothing wrong with charging for content we're willing to pay for, but honestly, PC gamers will be reluctant to give out these features, free defining features that they are used to, and have been given to them like a right for 15 years running.

And here's the sense of entitlement. It wasn't a right. It was never a right. They did it because they wanted to, and they should be just as free to choose not to as they were before.

[newcomplex]

Hey, whaddya know, Blizzard fans putting the most negative spin possible on something. Shocking.

Think about $5 bonus campaigns. Think about new single player units. Think about incentives for map makers to hire teams and create high-quality products.

25$ maps and a bonus campaign were released for wc3 for free, as well as models not used in campaigns, including fucking kel'thuzad on a racecar.

Its not an unalienable gamer right to be streamed free content from game developers, and pretending like it is makes you look like a twat.

But on the same side, as a long time blizzard fanboy, who stood by almost every one of their controversial decisions, I really draw the line at this. Their revoking the reason why I gave them my support, bought every game without question (and have no doubts because every one of them was good), and that was because I know they'd provide my a greater bang for my bucks then any other company.

Without that kind of dedication given to their customers for no monetary cost, blizzard just becomes another company. Their not nearly on par with activsion on the douchebaggery scale however.



They're going to have to do that anyway to prevent cheating. You can't let people modify what their client shows them willy-nilly and still say you have a fair game.

And here's the sense of entitlement. It wasn't a right. It was never a right. They did it because they wanted to, and they should be just as free to choose not to as they were before.

I am aware its not an entitled right for free content.

However, it is the reason why I support blizzard so hardcore. Because of all the free things they do for fans. 2 pets for 10$ isn't that big of a deal, and I doubt it will ever come to charging for epics, but the truth of it is, if you showed me those pets a month ago, I'd assume they were cool achievement rewards or dungeon drops. Now, that content, no matter how tiny, is now removed, replaced with monetary incentive.

This is standard for the game industry. But it is by no where near standard for blizzard.

I'm not saying ZOMG ZOMG BOYCOTT SC2 CUZ WE CAN BUY DECALS. But it really does changes my perception of blizzard for the worse.

also:

you misinterpreted my post. I said "like a right", not "a right". I was referring to how a lot of other people see this kind of stuff as a right, which I view as childish and silly. I view it as a privilege given to us by blizzard, and is one of the main reasons I support them as much as I do.

[spychi]

I like how they will allow mod-makers/campaign creators to demand money for their content, it will change the quality in a positive way, and such actions I approve. I choosed the third option, if something that will have no influence on the gameplay will be for money like avatars or what-so-ever I am cool with that.

[Pick]

Did you know it costs $25.00 to change your race for one character in WoW?

Kind of off subject, but doesn't that seem a bit extreme for what should be a really easy database change? I was expecting a minimal fee of a few bucks just to keep people from doing it non-stop with no consequences, but $25 for a change that means very little for gameplay, just graphical preference.

[Triceron]

Blizzard is also moderating that system, or at least I hope they are. What would prevent someone from putting up empty maps for $5 with lots of photoshopped 'screenshots' to bait people into downloading?

And to be honest, if we're paying for Expansions, paying for microtransaction stuff for similar content shouldn't be bad. Yes, they gave that stuff out for free in the past, but like I said, the cost of creating content now compared to before is different. Plus this doesn't even mean Blizzard will stop giving out free content, only that they [i]could[i] charge for some if people wanted.

And even based on WoW's microtransaction models, there are things like non-combat pets that people will buy for themselves or as gifts for others. Have a friend online that you're really good friends with and have no way of mailing a gift? Buy him a new avatar or map pack. I'm getting games off Steam as gifts from some people, and I'll be doing the same as well. I don't see this as a bad thing at all, it's simply more options.

For those who feel they're missing out on this content by not buying into it, grow up. You're missing out on nothing important because it'll all be optional. There will be nothing game-changing that will be offered through a microtransaction, or else it'll be called an Expansion.

[newcomplex]

Did you know it costs $25.00 to change your race for one character in WoW?

Kind of off subject, but doesn't that seem a bit extreme for what should be a really easy database change? I was expecting a minimal fee of a few bucks just to keep people from doing it non-stop with no consequences, but $25 for a change that means very little for gameplay, just graphical preference.

Those changes are a very different thing from my viewpoint.

Essentially, the concept of micro transactions is that a player will receive virtual goods directly by paying the company maintaining the game. Character changes are a feature, a feature which they really want to keep separate from the "in game" environment. Blizzard wants to regulate the people switching between realms in a way that is unconnected with the game, so it is not taken likely. So its not "Hey I have 2000 gold I think I'll transfer off this server". It becomes a matter of real life commitment, as opposed to real life commitment by proxy (farming gold).

Not only have you created a way to regulate the character changing system, but you have created a way to...make money. Which is good for all parties involved.

Even with cardgames, you're not directly paying the developers for content. You are lending your support to a cardgame blizzard wants to see popularized, while possibly receiving an ingame pet as a prize.

Basically, in every case, blizzard is making money through a proxy of some sort. While money is obviously their ulterior motive, it is not the motive that is immediately relevent.

With micro-transactions, their are no barriers. You pay money to blizzard, they give you item. Simply, hassle free.

Thats micro-transactions. For content, albeit how small. In a 60$ (10+20+30) game that has a 15$ monthly on top of it.

These changes are however, irrelevant for the average player. It's two pets. But blizzard is definitely planning to increase the stuff you can buy through the ingame store. Even without resorting to the slippery slope fallacy, lets say they only sell mounts and minipets. Those are things that you are not getting, that your $=60+15x+(expansions*x) does not cover. And potentially, those are things that would have been given to you anyway, but later changed for some cash.

The same logic applys in every regard to starcraft WoF. I already have no doubt blizzard will be selling smurf accounts through the ingame store. What else?

[ArcherofAiur]

Sorry about the question ambiguity. Yes means approve, no means disapprove. Id change it if I could.




Hey, whaddya know, Blizzard fans putting the most negative spin possible on something. Shocking.

Think about $5 bonus campaigns. Think about new single player units. Think about incentives for map makers to hire teams and create high-quality products.

Heres the funny thing about micro-transactions, they allow a minority of people with high money and/or interest to drive up the price and concordantly down the required quality of the service/product. To a certain extent this is just good free market economics. However, when taken to a certain level companies can make high profits from shipping out low quality products *cough EA cough*. It depends on what quality-to-price ratio maximizes profit.

Now Blizzard has so far shown itself immune from Invisible Hand influences. This is most probably because of an emphasis on long term brandname integrity and subsequent long term profit. But one does have to wonder whether in-game content like "pets" is a product aimed at high-quality-to-price, long term profit or if it is a product designed for low-quality-to-price, short term profit.

[spychi]

Heres the funny thing about micro-transactions, they allow a minority of people with high money and/or interest to drive up the price and concordantly down the required quality of the service/product. To a certain extent this is just good free market economics. However, when taken to a certain level companies can make high profits from shipping out low quality products *cough EA cough*. It depends on what quality-to-price ratio maximizes profit.

.

this is why if something will be crappy and expensive, people won't buy it, it's that simple
the thing is that they allowed people who will spend a week or two or even more time on custom maps to create great campaigns/mods/UMS maps and they will earn some for their time, Blizzard by doing that not only will give the opportunity to make money for map makers, it will bring the quality that sometimes lacks in the SC1 (if it comes to some UMS maps). I love UMS maps and I will buy them if needed, also it's not said that if someone who makes maps will demand from people money, if a map maker feels that it should be for free, it will be for free, if he will want some ammount of money for it and people will like it.
I doubt that long campaigns will cost more than from max 5$, just look at iPod applications, iTunes is a great thing for modders of apple apps same thing will happen for modders at Battle.net 2.0

BTW sorry but EA nowadays is even better than Activision if it comes to good quality/price games so...bah Modern Warfare 2, shitty game, overpriced, with no-free DLC even for PC's, 5-6 hour singleplayer, no dedicated servers, no mods for that game will be like the most shitty game ever

[newcomplex]

Sorry about the question ambiguity. Yes means approve, no means disapprove. Id change it if I could.





Heres the funny thing about micro-transactions, they allow a minority of people with high money and/or interest to drive up the price and concordantly down the required quality of the service/product. To a certain extent this is just good free market economics. However, when taken to a certain level companies can make high profits from shipping out low quality products *cough EA cough*. It depends on what quality-to-price ratio maximizes profit.

Now Blizzard has so far shown itself immune from Invisible Hand influences. This is most probably because of an emphasis on long term brandname integrity and subsequent long term profit. But one does have to wonder whether in-game content like "pets" is a product aimed at high-quality-to-price, long term profit or if it is a product designed for low-quality-to-price, short term profit.
Since the change in leadership in EA, they actually ships out some good new IP, and their management of recently acquired bioware is actually not deplorable, all since their changes in CEO's.

Archer, the current company that is hip to hate is activision. Get on board dammit

;D

I'm not worried. Everyone was like ZOMG EA GREED WILL BRING END TO GAMING HUDDURRRR. Then their stock tanked, uppermanagement took fire, a new CEO, and now they're back to making somewhat mediocre instead of outright deplorable products. (but of course, yearly madden 20XX is still in place).

The same thing will happen to activision.

The reason why I bitch about blizzard doing this is because I care. I really don't care about EA or activision.

[spychi]

Since the change in leadership in EA, they actually ships out some good new IP, and their management of recently acquired bioware is actually not deplorable, all since their changes in CEO's.

Archer, the current company that is hip to hate is activision. Get on board dammit

;D
True true, Acti now is the worst game company, with the worst fucktard in the lead *cough* Kotick asshole*cough*

[ArcherofAiur]

this is why if something will be crappy and expensive, people won't buy it, it's that simple


Its not that simple. People are different. It is possible for you to make more money by selling a low quality product to a small portion of people provided they are willing to pay a higher price.

If a player buys an in-game pet that costs 10 dollars. That player has just bought 1/6th of the original games price. If half the players each buy 12 microtransactions youve just remade the games purchase value.

[spychi]

belive me, there will be no map that will cost more the 5 bucks
also there will be a rating system for maps, soo if something will be rated 5/5 and will cost few bucks than it is a reasonable price and if something will cost 5 bucks but it will be rated 1/5 than the map maker will be forced or to lower the price/make it free, or work on the map more and more and more until it will bring some quality, it's that simple
don't be afraid, Blizzard knows what he is doing and he will not milk from us money for crappy things
Blizzard=quality and the best community support in the world of gaming

if you will support and work for a fansite you will understand how important you are for them

ask me, LoA, Gradius, Rise, ChaosSmurf, ElemenT, anyone who supports/has his fansite and is a member here

[ArcherofAiur]

On the subject of whether or not Blizzard will lower the quality-to-price ratio, let me ask you this

would 6 of these
http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2009/september/babykt.jpg


be equal to the same product quality as this

http://nerdvana.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/09/wotlk-sized.jpg

[Triceron]

Its not that simple. People are different. It is possible for you to make more money by selling a low quality product to a small portion of people provided they are willing to pay a higher price.

If a player buys an in-game pet that costs 10 dollars. That player has just bought 1/6th of the original games price. If half the players each buy 12 microtransactions youve just remade the games purchase value.

People who play WoW do this on a whim. Ingame pets is not the first time this has happened. If you actually do the research, you'll see this has been happening for years now.

TCG has ingame benefits if you buy the cards, leading to people putting the Spectral Tiger mount on ebay for $300+. Last Blizzcon offered a DirectTV broadcast that also gave a in-game non combat pet for $50.

Many people have the money to spend and will spend it on something you enjoy. It doesn't matter if it's a tangible object or not, if you like it you will buy it. Just like how people buy MP3's or music off Itunes, I don't see this as any different.

The concern that Blizzard makes high-quality content or relative low-quality content is moot. Absolutely irrelevant. High quality Low quality is subjective. Are the free neutral heros in Warcraft 3 any different in quality than those offered in the expansions? How would you guage the online bonus RPG if you paid for it rather than got it for free? How did you guage the Frozen Throne campaign from having to buy it?

The monetary factor in all of this is irrelevant. The way anyone should judge these microtransactions should be based on 'do I want it enough to pay money for', nothing else.

-Edit-

Archer- For people who spend $10 on lunch, or $10 on a movie, Lil'KT is nothing. Comparing the price of vanity pets to expansions is irrelevant when you're obviously offering this content to different audiences. Lil'KT makes a great, cheap christmas gift for guildmates.

[spychi]

if it's something uniqe and someone wants to have it and it doesn't affect the gameplay much, than yes!
do you play World of WarCraf?
do you have some in-game pets?
do you like them?
do you want to buy them, because you like to collect things?
if on any of these questions you answered no, than your point is biased and without the propper experience.




The monetary factor in all of this is irrelevant. The way anyone should judge these microtransactions should be based on 'do I want it enough to pay money for', nothing else.


exactly

[ArcherofAiur]

People who play WoW do this on a whim. Ingame pets is not the first time this has happened. If you actually do the research, you'll see this has been happening for years now.

I know it has. People have been predicting this trend for a while. Thats why its funny when people think this is where microtransactions will end.

[Norfindel]

http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2009/september/babykt.jpg
I think that people is free to waste their money in whatever they see fit. As long as the base product is good, and paid content don't gives advantages, i don't care in what others use their money.

[Kalash]

Paying for UMS maps is just mental, Dota was a fine map (i didnt like the map but still is a great map) and maps should not be charged, i know blizzard say Dota wouldnt qualify for being placed on the market but still, if they want to sell something, they should sell Mods, even thought i dislime the idea, as a map maker myself i just cant imagine selling those stuff community makes things for community for free.

[ArcherofAiur]

What if Blizzard came out with a microtransaction that for 10 dollars allows you to watch replays with friends?

And if later they came out with another one that for 10 dollars allows you to use voice chat for B.Net?

And later a name change service for 10 dollars?

[spychi]

@post above
and if someone will think: ok I have spent few hours on that map, not really worthy money, I will allow to dl it for free" you will still stand with your point?


What if Blizzard came out with a microtransaction that for 10 dollars allows you to watch replays with friends?
that is the most stupid idea I have ever heard
replay feature will be one of those many things for free at battle.net 2.0 it won't be for money, Blizzard is not stupid to milk money on such obvious battle.net features*

bah * on any battle.net features
I talked with Xordiah and she said: BATTLE.NET 2.0 will be free!!111111oneoneoneoen

[ArcherofAiur]

Mmmhhhh
and say you wanted to change your charectors name? Would Blizzard ever charge for that?

[newcomplex]

On the subject of whether or not Blizzard will lower the quality-to-price ratio, let me ask you this

would 6 of these
http://static.mmo-champion.com/mmoc/images/news/2009/september/babykt.jpg


be equal to the same product quality as this

http://nerdvana.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/09/wotlk-sized.jpg

wotlk sold for 40$ on release day.


I would know, I bought it.

so 4 of those lol.


Mmmhhhh
and say you wanted to change your charectors name? Would Blizzard ever charge for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I mean, you have a tiny semblance of logical basis from going to Namechanges->realm transfers-> facechanges-> factionchanges-> racechanges->pets->Epics.

But going from

WoW epics->Payed replay options is nothing short of stupidity.

I mean, look at this mother fucking pool. 60% of the community supports payed content. From a blizzard perspective, pets were a very logical thing to add to the game. I'm sure 60% of the WoW community would have been 100% ok with pets and the remaining 40% wouldn't ragequit because of it. So blizzard gets cash and the people who want pets get pets, and the majority of the community wants it.

Even going from pets->epics is a logical fallacy, because your assuming that the general community perspective on that is equivelent to that of pets. Which is not true.

Ironically, it seems like the people who actually play wow (and are effected by the change) are the ones who bitch about it the least.

btw I do not play wow anymore, quit like half a year ago. I have the sense to realize I simply got bored of it though, instead of some drastic wrongdoing on blizzards end.

[Hamshank]

considering they're making 2 expansions I doubt we'll see small ad on

[spychi]

Mmmhhhh
and say you wanted to change your charectors name? Would Blizzard ever charge for that?

lol, I don't want to change my nickname and I never will, it's always the same
or spychi or spychi88, no other nickname

http://www.google.pl/#hl=pl&source=hp&q=spychi&btnG=Szukaj+w+Google&lr=&aq=f&oq=spychi&fp=f7d778c84ded9465

[ArcherofAiur]

Too be fair I dont think microtransactions in and of themselves are a bad thing.


For instance i think rewarding players for giving to charity is a great idea.

[Triceron]

I'm taking Spychi8

[pure.Wasted]

The WarCraft 3 Collector's Edition cost $150. WarCraft 3 cost $60?

Following your vanity pet argument, Archer, you'd have to ask, "Is WC3 CE's content really MORE THAN DOUBLE that of WC3?!"

And, obviously enough, NO, it isn't. All you get is some behind-the-scenes DVDs, an artbook, and a soundtrack.

I still got it. Plenty of other people still got it. How is that not a microtransaction? 'Microtransactions' the term might be new, but the concept is as old as our economy system.

Unless you're willing to say that Collector's Editions as separately purchasable products have no right to exist, your argument has no leg to stand on. And I really doubt you'd be willing to make a claim that controversial. Are you?

[newcomplex]

WarCraft 3 cost $60?


What is this, the X-box?

[spychi]

nah, it's around 14$ in Poland

[ArcherofAiur]

The WarCraft 3 Collector's Edition cost $150. WarCraft 3 cost $60?

Following your vanity pet argument, Archer, you'd have to ask, "Is WC3 CE's content really MORE THAN DOUBLE that of WC3?!"

And, obviously enough, NO, it isn't. All you get is some behind-the-scenes DVDs, an artbook, and a soundtrack.

I still got it. Plenty of other people still got it. How is that not a microtransaction? 'Microtransactions' the term might be new, but the concept is as old as our economy system.

Unless you're willing to say that Collector's Editions as separately purchasable products have no right to exist, your argument has no leg to stand on. And I really doubt you'd be willing to make a claim that controversial. Are you?


I am not argueing against microtransactions. I am argueing against inappropriate trends in microtransactions.

[pure.Wasted]

nah, it's around 14$ in Poland

Are we talking about now or when the game first came out?

In Canada WC3 went for $60. TFT went for $50. This is standard.

No matter how much they cost, though, that discrepancy between Product X and Product X CE will always exist. It's absolutely no different from the sort of microtransactions that have been brought up by Blizzard in the context of WoW/SC2.

[newcomplex]

I am not argueing against microtransactions. I am argueing against inappropriate trends in microtransactions.

What trend?

oh you mean this one

Name Changes-At first,"No current plans for", purely aesthetic
Server Changes-At first,"No current plans for" purely aesthetic
Face Changes-At first,"No current plans for" purely aesthetic
Faction Changes-At first,"No current plans for" purely aesthetic
Race Changes-At first,"No current plans for" purely aesthetic
Cash pets-At first,"No current plans for" purely aesthetic

thats an awfully big jump to

Free Epics, Pay for View replays.

[pure.Wasted]

I am not argueing against microtransactions. I am argueing against inappropriate trends in microtransactions.

I see absolutely none in SC2 that have never existed before. If you don't like where the industry is going in general, apart from Blizzard, I don't understand why this thread is in the SC2 forum. That is misleading, because it suggests you have a problem with Blizzard's policies regarding SC2.

[ArcherofAiur]

See thats the problem with warnings and apprehensions. By the time they actually become true bad things have already happened.

[spychi]

Are we talking about now or when the game first came out?

In Canada WC3 went for $60. TFT went for $50. This is standard.


now :P, it was for 44 $ at release though

[Triceron]

What's bad about having the option of changing aspects of my WoW character that I would otherwise have not had an option to change?

[ArcherofAiur]

What's bad about having the option of changing aspects of my WoW character that I would otherwise have not had an option to change?

They couldnt have allowed your WOW charector to change its sex without charging you?

[spychi]

Correction, it was around 30$ (the current currency makes it 14$ more expensive in the exchange)

[pure.Wasted]

See thats the problem with warnings and apprehensions. By the time they actually become true bad things have already happened.

But you're not actually warning against something plausible. There is NOTHING new about these microtransactions, and we have no reason to suspect that anything's changed, or any reason to believe that it will. If there is one, you have yet to provide it.

Unless you're willing to admit that you would have made the same warning during WC3's production. In which case, once again, I feel this belongs on the OT forum more than the SC2 forum.


They couldnt have allowed your WOW charector to change its sex without charging you?

They don't want people to do it. They're ALLOWING them to, but they don't want it. By putting a price-tag on the effect, they get to ensure that it's mostly just those that have really good reason for wanting the gender change that do it.

[Nicol Bolas]

See thats the problem with warnings and apprehensions. By the time they actually become true bad things have already happened.

Yes. The warning that some time in the future game developers will ask us to pay money for the content they make.

Consider us warned.

This is basic economics stuff. If developers ask us to pay more for stuff than we think it's worth, we won't buy it. It's really that simple.

[ArcherofAiur]

They don't want people to do it. They're ALLOWING them to, but they don't want it. By putting a price-tag on the effect, they get to ensure that it's mostly just those that have really good reason for wanting the gender change that do it.

Do you really believe that? That they are forcing themselves to take your money because its the only way to prevent people from doing it often.

And you cant think of any other way they could possibly discourage people from changing gender?



The real question everyone needs to ask themselves is "If it wasnt for the microtransaction trend would I be able to change gender for free? Would it have just been included in a patch?"

[spychi]

This is basic economics stuff. If developers ask us to pay more for stuff than we think it's worth, we won't buy it. It's really that simple.
*cough* modern warfare 2*cough*

I agree, this thread does not belong in the SC 2 forums... Or locked and delete

[pure.Wasted]

Do you really believe that? That they are forcing themselves to take your money because its the only way to prevent people from doing it often.

Well, I don't know, there's a shit-ton of in-game content that they are NOT forcing themselves to take your money to use, like the barber shop for example.

Note that the barber shop, which allows characters' to change up their appearance and is within the realm of plausibility, is FREE... while gender and race changes are NOT.

Hmm. Coincidence?

It's probably not the only way. But if it kills two birds with one stone, why not?


The real question everyone needs to ask themselves is "If it wasnt for the microtransaction trend would I be able to change gender for free? Would it have just been included in a patch?"

For Christ's sake we just established that THERE IS NO TREND. This has been happening since this economic system was established. What you're asking is akin to asking:

"If it wasn't for the microtransaction trend would I be able to get the Collector's Edition stuff for free?"

MAYBE. But that's not how things work. This isn't your issue with SC2, or even your issue with Blizzard, it's your issue with the way our society runs. And that has its place, but that's not the SC2 board.

[Triceron]

Do you really believe that? That they are forcing themselves to take your money because its the only way to prevent people from doing it often.

And you cant think of any other way they could possibly discourage people from changing gender?



The real question everyone needs to ask themselves is "If it wasnt for the microtransaction trend would I be able to change gender for free? Would it have just been included in a patch?"

So tell me, exactly what is wrong with that?

Again, it's an option, and it's there for you to use or not use. You're arguing on the basis that this will, in the future, affect aspects of games that affect you. But that's just fear mongering.

Unless this directly affects your enjoyment of the game, say through paid incentives that give players who pay an advantage, then it's all gravy.

You have to pay to play WoW every month? You have to pay to read the Warcraft novels that tell of lore that could have been contained in the very game you bought. You could make the same argument against all of that, but we all know it has no standing because it's a stupid argument. It's as easy as 'if you don't like it, don't buy it'.

By no means is Blizzard forcing you to have a sex change on your character. For any reason that you do wish to, the option is there, so you can't say they don't offer it. For you to want it to be free is as baseless as asking for a free oilchange because you bought a car. A service is a service, and that's what you're paying for.

[ArcherofAiur]

MAYBE. But that's not how things work. This isn't your issue with SC2, or even your issue with Blizzard, it's your issue with the way our society runs. And that has its place, but that's not the SC2 board.

If people accept it...then yes.

[pure.Wasted]

If people accept it...then yes.

If people accept what then yes?

[Triceron]

I get a feeling it's a case of Blizzard's charity to its fanbase biting em in the ass, because people are starting to look the gift horse in the mouth.

[ArcherofAiur]

If people accept what then yes?

Accept that thats just how it works.


I said this before but since people are missing it i will reexplain. The complaint isnt against microtransactions. The complaint is against microtransactions leading to low quality to price products.

But maybe you think a model that costs one fourth of an expansion pack is the same quality to price.

[pure.Wasted]

Accept that thats just how it works.


I said this before but since people are missing it i will reexplain. The complaint isnt against microtransactions. The complaint is against microtransactions leading to low quality to price products.

But maybe you think a model that costs one fourth of an expansion pack is the same quality to price.

I like how you reiterate this idea as though it hasn't been COMPLETELY DISPROVEN.

Collector's Editions. They exist. They do not DOUBLE a game's content. The WC3 CE didn't even TOUCH the game's content. Like, NOT A BIT.

Either start arguing against Collector's Editions as well, or drop it. There's no logical middle-ground until you prove that CE's are somehow quantifiably, inherently, different. You've yet to make the attempt.

[DemolitionSquid]

I like how you reiterate this idea as though it hasn't been COMPLETELY DISPROVEN.

Collector's Editions. They exist. They do not DOUBLE a game's content. The WC3 CE didn't even TOUCH the game's content. Like, NOT A BIT.

Either start arguing against Collector's Editions as well, or drop it. There's no logical middle-ground until you prove that CE's are somehow quantifiably, inherently, different. You've yet to make the attempt.

Look at who you're arguing with. Just ignore him.

[pure.Wasted]

Look at who you're arguing with. Just ignore him.

I have this baseless, irrational theory that if I can just prove that he doesn't understand logic in enough completely separate threads, people will learn to intuitively dismiss certain things that are said.

This is like a really convoluted Public Service Announcement. Xanatos PSA FTW?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Tigger]

Blizzard will never make microtransaction content effect gameplay, I seem to remember in one interview that they have always intended Starcraft to be a game of skill, nothing else. What would SC be if gaps in skill level could be passed with money?

[ArcherofAiur]

If you think Collectors Edition is the appropriate quality to price then you wouldnt have a problem with it. If you didnt think it was an appropriate quality to price then you would have a problem with it. Its as simple as that.

[Triceron]

And again, I refute that by saying quality is subjective.

It's honestly a case of 'Do I want it enough to pay money for'.

If you don't like the $10 pricing of lil'KT for whatever reason, quality or otherwise, then you have the option of not buying it.

In the case they release content you DO want but feel is overpriced, then that's something you'll have to take up with Blizzard or put up with. What other option do you have?

We have no direct control over their pricing systems, or else WoW would be free, the expansions would be free, and we'd have 5X more content in our collector's editions - which would also be free.

[ArcherofAiur]

And again, I refute that by saying quality is subjective.

It's honestly a case of 'Do I want it enough to pay money for'.

If you don't like the $10 pricing of lil'KT for whatever reason, quality or otherwise, then you have the option of not buying it.

In the case they release content you DO want but feel is overpriced, then that's something you'll have to take up with Blizzard or put up with. What other option do you have?

We have no direct control over their pricing systems, or else WoW would be free, the expansions would be free, and we'd have 5X more content in our collector's editions - which would also be free.

Its not about the price. Its about the price to quality ratio. Just because that is subjective does not mean it doesnt exist.

[Tigger]

Its not about the price. Its about the price to quality ratio. Just because that is subjective does not mean it doesnt exist.

But....

How can there be a ratio if there is no definite value for the quality of the product?

If the quality varies by person, won't the ratio too?

[Krikkitone]

Accept that thats just how it works.


I said this before but since people are missing it i will reexplain. The complaint isnt against microtransactions. The complaint is against microtransactions leading to low quality to price products.

But maybe you think a model that costs one fourth of an expansion pack is the same quality to price.

They provide a Quality to Price that is sufficient for the people that buy them.

If people want to pay money for Blizzard crap models then that is fine (its not crap to them).
As long as Blizzard turns out non-crap games for a reasonable price, I will buy those.
If Blizzard stops producing non-crap games, I will hold my money ready to buy if someone starts making non-crap RTS games again.

As long as the microtransactions don't extend to Game play (ie Want to get a Hive, that'll be 200 min 150 gas and $ 0.01) then its fine.


But if you are complaining about low Quality to Price.... you really should be looking at our entire society.... 60-80% of the entire industrialized economy is spent buying, borrowing to buy, making, and marketing crap. Save your money so you can buy the non-crap the industrialized world makes.
*There will always be a market for non-crap, its just a lot smaller than the market for crap.


ps remember quality is relative... the price of that crappy model may be the same for you and someone else, but to Them it is higher quality... so it might even be a higher Quality to Price ratio than the game itself. (for them)

[pure.Wasted]

Its not about the price. Its about the price to quality ratio. Just because that is subjective does not mean it doesnt exist.

And you think that a $100 difference between WC3 and WC3 CE, for a soundtrack CD and an artbook, was warranted?

I did. I bought it.

Plenty of people think Lil'KT is worth $10, because they bought him, too.

[newcomplex]

Are we talking about now or when the game first came out?

In Canada WC3 went for $60. TFT went for $50. This is standard.

No matter how much they cost, though, that discrepancy between Product X and Product X CE will always exist. It's absolutely no different from the sort of microtransactions that have been brought up by Blizzard in the context of WoW/SC2.

PC games are usually all 50$ in U.S, except for MW2 lol


Do you really believe that? That they are forcing themselves to take your money because its the only way to prevent people from doing it often.

And you cant think of any other way they could possibly discourage people from changing gender?



The real question everyone needs to ask themselves is "If it wasnt for the microtransaction trend would I be able to change gender for free? Would it have just been included in a patch?"

Without micro transaction, blizzard would have implemented a system of rules and regulations that would have lead to far more abuse and wierdness then a microtransaction. I already addressed this. Putting real life monetary is really the most efficient way of limiting a service to the people serious about it in game, and causes less lorelols because it doesnt have to be even considered canon.

Making money AND a simple system of regulations. Awesome


Accept that thats just how it works.


I said this before but since people are missing it i will reexplain. The complaint isnt against microtransactions. The complaint is against microtransactions leading to low quality to price products.

But maybe you think a model that costs one fourth of an expansion pack is the same quality to price.

ZOMG LOW QUALITY TO PRICE PRODUCTS

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Shadow-of-the-Xel%27naga/Gabriel-Mesta/Starcraft/9780743423182

[Nicol Bolas]

The real question everyone needs to ask themselves is "If it wasnt for the microtransaction trend would I be able to change gender for free? Would it have just been included in a patch?"

Would I be able to change genders at all? There are quite a few MMOs that don't let you do that, after all.

This nonsense goes all the way back to the "horse armor" in one of those RPGs I don't remember. People didn't like it, they didn't buy it, so the developers didn't try it again.

Let the market work these things out. Just because something might have been free in the past doesn't mean it should be free in the future.

Those fancy-schmancy graphics that gamers insist on having in the games they buy cost more money than they did 5 years ago too. Yet the price of PC games is stable: $50 (which itself is worth less than it was 5 years ago, thanks to inflation). If game developers get yelled at for raising the base price of their games, then their only option is to find alternate means of getting money.

[ArcherofAiur]

ZOMG LOW QUALITY TO PRICE PRODUCTS

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Shadow-of-the-Xel%27naga/Gabriel-Mesta/Starcraft/9780743423182

lol point in case old blue.

[deadlock]

Goddamn blizzard should be giving us this shit for free

fuck

[unentschieden]

Well thats the crux. Microtransactions allow Blizzard to offer us content not valid for conventional channels aka expansions. Unfortunately they would also allow them to charge us for stuff that SHOULD be free. It´s basically the DLC issue for the PC.
Blizzard is thankfully conscious about the issue, after official (the dark portal) and inofficial (the nonblizzard SC "expansions") low quality 3rd party content they got the message.

What would be big enough to charge for but to small for a expansion or even spin-off?

[Nicol Bolas]

Unfortunately they would also allow them to charge us for stuff that SHOULD be free.It´s basically the DLC issue for the PC.

Who says that it "SHOULD" be free?

[Triceron]

Everyone who isn't making a profit off the game?

[Nicol Bolas]

Everyone who isn't making a profit off the game?

Isn't that what everyone who buys things whats? For all the stuff they buy to be free?

We live in a captialism. That means, among other things, that you pay people for stuff. Like videogames. If you don't like the price that someone offers for the stuff, you don't give them money.

Like Penny Arcade said on this issue: the PC is the most open platform on the planet. If you don't like the price on what someone's offering, someone else will be along to fill your needs presently.

[Pandonetho]

Point of view of the people against paying for stuff: Shit, I'm too cheap to pay for this shit, and even though I am TOTALLY FREE NOT TO PAY FOR IT I don't want anyone else buying it, because if I can't have it, neither should they.

[DemolitionSquid]

This is why I'm a socialist.

[Krikkitone]

This is why I'm a socialist.

So we Shouldn't be free to Not pay for it, instead we would have to pay for it whether we want to or not.

[DemolitionSquid]

So we Shouldn't be free to Not pay for it, instead we would have to pay for it whether we want to or not.

That is not even remotely what I said.

[Krikkitone]

That is not even remotely what I said.

I'm presuming by socialist you meant the regulation of economy type.

You could have meant the social welfare type where you pay for it, not only whether or not you want it, but whether or not you are the one that gets it.

But I thought that would be presuming too much.

Or were you focusing on the idea that we shouldn't have the option to pay for it because it wouldn't exist. (because there is no profit in it)

[DemolitionSquid]

I'm presuming by socialist you meant the regulation of economy type.

You could have meant the social welfare type where you pay for it, not only whether or not you want it, but whether or not you are the one that gets it.

But I thought that would be presuming too much.

Or were you focusing on the idea that we shouldn't have the option to pay for it because it wouldn't exist. (because there is no profit in it)

That people would make video games for entertainment, not money.
That food would be grown, clothes tailored, and houses built for the greater good from a sense of unity, not profit.
That anyone could truly do anything they wanted for free and for personal and society fulfillment.

[Krikkitone]

That people would make video games for entertainment, not money.
That food would be grown, clothes tailored, and houses built for the greater good from a sense of unity, not profit.
That anyone could truly do anything they wanted for free and for personal and society fulfillment.

So a communist*....sorry, none of those has ever made it out of the dictatorship phase, maybe with better genetic engineering, educational technigues, marketing methods, political propaganda, and planned breeding someone will be able to successfully change human nature so that people will suffer scarcity for the general good without trying to cheat the system.

And then real humans like you and me will exploit them. (not you and me specifically but humans like you and me).

PS video games Are made for entertainment not profit, just not by Blizzard
There are food banks, good will clothing donations... Habitat for Humanity. All these things take place.

The problem with the view is this

That anyone could truly do anything they wanted for free and for personal and society fulfillment

So which is it....
anything you want for free (what I want)
OR
society fullfillment (what someone else wants)


Basically you either have to

Give humans an unlimited ability to detect cheating ie unblockable mind reading abilities

Take away our ability to cheat (brain programming)

Eliminate scarcity by eliminating our desires

Eliminate scarcity by altering the fundamental nature of the universe so that all our wishes come true


*just about everyone is a communist in the sense of desiring some type of society similar to Marx's end point vision, the problem is that vision is Utopian, in all its senses.

And with that Archer's thread has been successfully derailed (sorry)

[ArcherofAiur]

And with that Archer's thread has been successfully derailed (sorry)

I actually kinda like where this is going....

[DemolitionSquid]

I am a Socialist. Not a Communist. They are completely different things, and your ignorance is typical and saddens me.

[Krikkitone]

I am a Socialist. Not a Communist. They are completely different things, and your ignorance is typical and saddens me.

Everyone should do things for the common good rather than any benefit they get?

That's Marx's ideal. I'm not assuming you agree with his description of the best way to get there, as that was pretty discredited by all the people that tried. (ie I'm not assuming you are a Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist, that you believe in central planning, worker's revolution, etc.)... only that you think people should be doing things for 'the common good' because of a spirit of 'unity'.

OK, let me put it this way.

George wants a video game
George can't make video games
Jenny can

How does George get Jenny to make a video game?

There are a number of factors that can lead to Jenny making a video game for George

1. Jenny likes George and wants him to be happy

2. Jenny likes making video games

3. George, or some of his friends, will beat Jenny up if she doesn't make a video game

4. Other people won't do nice things for Jenny if she doesn't do this for George (and they will do noce things for her if she does)


I'd say those are the four basic reasons
# 3 is definitely a bad one so we'll leave that off... but it gets use quite a lot.

#1 would be nice, but not everyone is going to be liked in that unconditional way... this is a Utopian solution

#2 is also nice, but maybe more people want video games than Jenny wants to make them for... or maybe Jenny likes making video games that other people don't like

#1-3 also don't provide any benefit to Jenny besides
enjoying her work, not getting beat up, and making people happy

Now what if Jenny wants a car.. she can rely on the same strategy but
#1 what if people don't like her that much
#2 what if there aren't enough people who like building cars
#3 If she was strong enough to beat people up George wouldn't have been able to threaten her in the first place

That is why #4 is the best method....
if you do things for George, Other people will do a wide variety of stuff for you

Now there are a number of ways to do this, in a small enough community you can do it through a shared understanding... a unity, we'll all be there for each other. People developed in these societies....

And they learned how cheat the system (and how to catch cheaters)

People learned how to slack off, or get Lots of nice things without doing nice things for others.

Because they got caught in small societies it didn't get out of hand.

In bigger societies its a lot harder to tell if someone is slacking, or getting too many nice things, so the way to do it is to either
have some way of keeping track of how many nice things a person has done.
or
the only way you get a nice thing from someone is doing a nice thing for them ... ie Jenny better hope George can build a car

barter is easier when you are just randomly thrown together but terribly inefficient... so eventually it developed into money

money essentially became a way to do that first option... you give people money when they do something for you, and they can give that money to other people to get them to do something nice to them.

Now there is still a lot of people that enjoy making (certain) other people happy, and a lot of people that enjoy (some) of their work, and a lot of beating up (or throwing in jail or threateningto do so) that happens.

but by and large ists the best possible system unless you can

1. Stop Cheating
2. Stop people wanting things
3. Make sure everyone likes making other people happy more than themselves
4. Make everything that people want/need enjoyable to make in the way and amount people want (compared to anything else people could do)

#1-3 there is some hope if you literally rewire human brains on a very significant level
#4 is probably prohibited by the laws of the universe (as long as people keep wanting things)


Now Money does not obviously solve the problem of people cheating... but they have to cheat with the money (things like contracts help too, and those work better with money)
It doesn't solve the beating up problem, but it provides an alternative.

It doesn't make everyone like each other, but so far nothing else has either.

Your ideal society is economically the same as Marx's ideal society.... relying on everyone liking each other/common good/unity to get things done. That is why I said it was Communist. (again no intent to compare you to the Soviets, etc etc.)

Socialist implies much more of a regimented society with safety nets (which is why I initially thought you meant people wouldn't be able not to pay, or wouldn't be able to pay, or would pay for someone else)

[DemolitionSquid]

You so don't get it man. Everyone should do everything for the common good. Period.

Whatever, this isn't the place for this discussion. Just go watch more Star Trek.

[Shadow Archon]

You so don't get it man. Everyone should do everything for the common good. Period.

And because we are all human, I doubt that is ever going to happen.

[ArcherofAiur]

Darn natural selection and its conflicting agendas.

[DemolitionSquid]

And because we are all human, I doubt that is ever going to happen.

With that attitude, yes.

Its your fault we don't live like they do Star Trek.

I hope your mother is proud of you.

[newcomplex]

Who says that it "SHOULD" be free?

Because its blizzard.

I can buy IW ward games if I wanted to be charged ten dollars for a one hour bonus mission.

The reason why blizzard is so awesome is because they give us stuff for free. Thats a huge fanservice for us, and we totally thank them for it. But its not a total charity because now they have my devotion to pretty much buy any product they come out with with pre-orders, and CE the day it comes out. This is coming from the guy who pirates almost all his games.

I hope they don't loose this devotion and cheese out by releasing free bonus missions like they have for every single other RTS they have created with pay-for play DLC's.

I have nothing against video game companies being...companies. But to me, blizzard's niche on the market is making a gaming studio that will always give me insane quality games with amazing replay value for a low low price of 50$. That's a pretty fucking broad niche. It's also why they nearly doubled activisions earnings.
---

and totally OT but

----


That people would make video games for entertainment, not money.
That food would be grown, clothes tailored, and houses built for the greater good from a sense of unity, not profit.
That anyone could truly do anything they wanted for free and for personal and society fulfillment.

My desire in society is to be better then others, whether through money, looks, popularity, charm, family, faith, friends, connections, enslavement, iccup rating or genocide.

what now squid D:

I am not speaking just for myself, but also for every other human being on this planet.

I shouldn't have to explain this to a guy who goes ramboing into threads about Christianity going UR GOD IS A LIE D:
I am disappoint.

[sandwich_bird]

My desire in society is to be better then others, whether through money, looks, popularity, charm, family, faith, friends, connections, enslavement, iccup rating or genocide.

You're crazy but in any case your desire is fufiled because you can always be better in at least one of those category when comparing yourself to someone else. So what now?

[Nicol Bolas]

The reason why blizzard is so awesome is because they give us stuff for free. Thats a huge fanservice for us, and we totally thank them for it. But its not a total charity because now they have my devotion to pretty much buy any product they come out with with pre-orders, and CE the day it comes out.

See, I still don't see where you answered my question: "Who says that it SHOULD be free?" Blizzard once thought these things should be free, but they are free to change their minds in the future. And the only recourse you have is to stop giving them money.


for a low low price of 50$. That's a pretty fucking broad niche. It's also why they nearly doubled activisions earnings.

Um, the game that did that didn't cost $50. It costs $14.95 per month. So I don't see how you draw that conclusion.


This is coming from the guy who pirates almost all his games.

If you don't want to pay for games, don't play them. You don't get to steal them just because you feel like they're overpriced.


My desire in society is to be better then others, whether through money, looks, popularity, charm, family, faith, friends, connections, enslavement, iccup rating or genocide.

Which is apparently why you think stealing games is just fine.


I am not speaking just for myself, but also for every other human being on this planet.

People are better than you think they are. Despite so many forces in society that tells us to be selfish jerks, most people remain as they were born: kind and compassionate.

[ArcherofAiur]

High-quality-to-price is what made Blizzard. No other video game company places such an emphasis on long term over short term profit.

[Nicol Bolas]

I thought it was making great games that made Blizzard. You know, the same thing that made Valve, Konami, Nintendo, Bioware, and a dozen other great game developers. All of them provide high quality to price.

[Krikkitone]

Its your fault we don't live like they do Star Trek.

On Star Trek, writers dictate every thought and desire of every character as well as every event that happens in the universe. Also, on Star Trek the people don't live because they are never really real. (I really prefer existence)

For the OP



Everyone should do everything for the common good. Period

And that is what Blizzard does with microtransactions, because the common good Includes the good of Blizzard's employees and shareholders, they allow other people to help them contribute to the common good. Because of microtransactions, You can help a Blizzard employee enjoy a latte. That is a contribution to the common good.

So Paying Microtransactions=Common Good.
UNLESS
The microtransactions are for something that you don't want and that noone that you know wants, so you can contribute to the common good by not buying it for yourself or anyone else who doesn't want it and let Blizzard know in that way that they aren't serving your portion of the common good.... providing that information is a common good. (and then you get to get Yourself a gallon of gas with the money you save which is part of the common good)

[ArcherofAiur]

I thought it was making great games that made Blizzard. You know, the same thing that made Valve, Konami, Nintendo, Bioware, and a dozen other great game developers. All of them provide high quality to price.

Exactly. Long term profit over short term.

[DemolitionSquid]

On Star Trek, writers dictate every thought and desire of every character as well as every event that happens in the universe. Also, on Star Trek the people don't live because they are never really real. (I really prefer existence)

Non-sequitur much?

[Shadow Archon]

With that attitude, yes.

Its your fault we don't live like they do Star Trek.

I hope your mother is proud of you.

Your blaming me because Im human?

Humans are greedy and selfish. We will never have a society like that. Its the one true flaw of Socialism. If it worked as it does paper, I probably would be for it, but it doesn't.

[DemolitionSquid]

Your blaming me because Im human?

Humans are greedy and selfish. We will never have a society like that. Its the one true flaw of Socialism. If it worked as it does paper, I probably would be for it, but it doesn't.

Humans are only greedy and selfish because we let them be.

[Shadow Archon]

Humans are only greedy and selfish because we let them be.

So, you are saying that only nature of money makes people selfish and greedy?

Is that what you are implying? I believe as long as there is something one man has and the other doesn't, there will be greed. A wife, a position of government, a job, a possession of some type, if other people's lives can all be the factors that create greed. In a sense, we will never get rid of it.

[DemolitionSquid]

So, you are saying that only nature of money makes people selfish and greedy?

Is that what you are implying? I believe as long as there is something one man has and the other doesn't, there will be greed. A wife, a position of government, a job, a possession of some type, if other people's lives can all be the factors that create greed. In a sense, we will never get rid of it.

It won't go away. But there needs to be better control of it.

Anyway I'm not in the mood for this discussion. Everyone thinks I'm crazy enough already.

[pure.Wasted]

It won't go away. But there needs to be better control of it.

Anyway I'm not in the mood for this discussion. Everyone thinks I'm crazy enough already.

No, I'm completely behind every thing you've said in this thread.

I just don't see why this thread is still allowed to be here, instead of Off-Topic, where I said it should be back on page 1!

[Gradius]

Moved to off-topic.

As for the OP, I would rather have the option than not have the option, as long as it doesn't mess with the core experience of the game and remains purely an option, not something that you're forced into buying.

[newcomplex]

See, I still don't see where you answered my question: "Who says that it SHOULD be free?" Blizzard once thought these things should be free, but they are free to change their minds in the future. And the only recourse you have is to stop giving them money.


Obviously, a pet will not make me not buy SC2. That would be ludicrous. It's not "dont implement micro transactions or I'll pirate/not play at all your games", it just goes down to the kind of service I receive for my 100+ purchase of WoF ce edition. If it lives up to the kind of continual quality updates and free stuff I have recieved from diablo, starcraft, warcraft, and to some extent, wow (though i do have to pay 15$ a month for that).

I'm just against micro transactions, because to me, it seems like a pathway that would prevent the kind of service I expect from blizzard.



Um, the game that did that didn't cost $50. It costs $14.95 per month. So I don't see how you draw that conclusion.


Right. Because of the operating costs. If I thought they were unjustified, I'd play on a private server. But obviously the cost is necessary, because private servers, which are free, are also shit.



If you don't want to pay for games, don't play them. You don't get to steal them just because you feel like they're overpriced.


Of course not. First of all, if your going to equate it to another crime, equate it to counterfeiting. Your diminishing a products value by making unauthorized copies. You are not stealing, because stealing requires a loss of goods on their end. Of course, that is obviously false in piracy.

That being said, counterfeiting is still illegal, and a crime. So is piracy. Maybe some ethical conscience part of my brain is defunct, but I simply do not care. This isn't me justifying piracy, which is in the end, is just illegal, and I am just a criminal when it comes to pirating games, this is me not caring because their are very little social ramifications on it. My chances of being caught are non-existent. The only reason why I would actually buy a game is to show support for the company. If a company is doing something highly admirable, I will not pirate the game. As to provide support to continue doing what they do.



Which is apparently why you think stealing games is just fine.


Its a crime, I just don't care. Because I simply do not care to show my support for companies like IW-ward, and my chances of being caught for the crime is completely abysmal (even if they were to somehow choose to scapegoat me, which is one in a million, I live in a dorm so any case would be moot)



People are better than you think they are. Despite so many forces in society that tells us to be selfish jerks, most people remain as they were born: kind and compassionate.
You know what they say about dogs? That every dog is just two meals away from becoming a wolf. Similar idea.

second, my idea isn't that all people are selfish. It is that humans are physically incapable of enjoying 90% of the things we enjoy without relative comparison to another human being.

btw squid 10/10. even I bit.