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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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.
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?
@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?
that is the most stupid idea I have ever heardQuote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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
Mmmhhhh
and say you wanted to change your charectors name? Would Blizzard ever charge for that?
wotlk sold for 40$ on release day.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
I would know, I bought it.
so 4 of those lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeQuote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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.
considering they're making 2 expansions I doubt we'll see small ad on
lol, I don't want to change my nickname and I never will, it's always the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
or spychi or spychi88, no other nickname
http://www.google.pl/#hl=pl&source=h...d778c84ded9465
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.
I'm taking Spychi8
The WarCraft 3 Collector's Edition cost $150. WarCraft 3 cost $60?
Following your vanity pet argument, Archer, you'd have to ask, "Is WC3 CE's content really MORE THAN DOUBLE that of WC3?!"
And, obviously enough, NO, it isn't. All you get is some behind-the-scenes DVDs, an artbook, and a soundtrack.
I still got it. Plenty of other people still got it. How is that not a microtransaction? 'Microtransactions' the term might be new, but the concept is as old as our economy system.
Unless you're willing to say that Collector's Editions as separately purchasable products have no right to exist, your argument has no leg to stand on. And I really doubt you'd be willing to make a claim that controversial. Are you?
What is this, the X-box?Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
nah, it's around 14$ in Poland
Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
I am not argueing against microtransactions. I am argueing against inappropriate trends in microtransactions.
Are we talking about now or when the game first came out?Quote:
Originally Posted by spychi
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.
What trend?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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.
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.Quote:
I am not argueing against microtransactions. I am argueing against inappropriate trends in microtransactions.
See thats the problem with warnings and apprehensions. By the time they actually become true bad things have already happened.
now :P, it was for 44 $ at release thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
Correction, it was around 30$ (the current currency makes it 14$ more expensive in the exchange)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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 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.Quote:
They couldnt have allowed your WOW charector to change its sex without charging you?
Yes. The warning that some time in the future game developers will ask us to pay money for the content they make.Quote:
See thats the problem with warnings and apprehensions. By the time they actually become true bad things have already happened.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
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?"
*cough* modern warfare 2*cough*Quote:
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.
I agree, this thread does not belong in the SC 2 forums... Or locked and delete
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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?
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:Quote:
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?"
"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.
So tell me, exactly what is wrong with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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.
If people accept it...then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
If people accept what then yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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.
Accept that thats just how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pure.Wasted
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
This is like a really convoluted Public Service Announcement. Xanatos PSA FTW?
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
But....Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur
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?