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.