Monetization of Battlenet (article inside)

[Gifted]

Two phrases I've heard in the industry relating to this subject. I've eluded to them in previous posts:

"Microtransactions are considered good when the customer believes they are a bargain, not a burden"
"The customer will be happy if they look to purchase a Micro-transaction with Macro-compensation."

Rather short for a Gifted post.. agreed?

[Nicol Bolas]

You compare HG:L to Diablo and then claim it's an MMO. Therein lies the flaw with your argument.

I called it an MMO because it is an MMO. It is just as much an MMO as WoW or Everquest or whatever. It, like many other MMOs, happens to be built on instanced areas. There's still a centralized server where all players can interact within the game.

What is the difference structurally between Hellgate and Guildwars that makes one an MMO and the other not an MMO?

Imagine if payed SC2 players were given additional abilities or stronger units? It's quite absurd, isn't it?

Only because SC2 is a competitive game. Diablo, Hellgate, and other MMOs are cooperative (usually). In a cooperative game, it doesn't hurt you at all that someone else has better gear than you. Whether they got it through putting in longer hours or paying money is entirely irrelevant.

[n00bonicPlague]

Two phrases I've heard in the industry relating to this subject. I've eluded to them in previous posts:

"Microtransactions are considered good when the customer believes they are a bargain, not a burden"
"The customer will be happy if they look to purchase a Micro-transaction with Macro-compensation."

Rather short for a Gifted post.. agreed?

They should learn to integrate these principles into SC2's macro mechanics.

[newcomplex]

Most dlc is usless crap anyway, don't buy it if it's so offensive. The option is always there, to buy or not to buy, don't take it away from the people that want that stuff.

Blizzard aren't going to charge for something you can live without.

Feel free to quote this if they ever do start selling essential stuff for extra, and i'll eat this hat hanging from my coatrack.

Maybe i'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I could physically survive not buying starcraft 2. Maybe not though. You're probably right, I couldn't live without it actually. Nvm.

[ArcherofAiur]

Two phrases I've heard in the industry relating to this subject. I've eluded to them in previous posts:

"Microtransactions are considered good when the customer believes they are a bargain, not a burden"
"The customer will be happy if they look to purchase a Micro-transaction with Macro-compensation."

Rather short for a Gifted post.. agreed?

Thats a fair statement. Now if players had to pay to watch certain replays (like the korean pro matches are now) would players consider that a bargain or a burden?

[The_Blade]

Thats a fair statement. Now if players had to pay to watch certain replays (like the korean pro matches are now) would players consider that a bargain or a burden?

Burden, because it used to be free...

That will be a popular argument in the future, when related to content that was free under the original SC. In order for something to look like a bargain, it must be either new or cheaper than it used to be.

[ArcherofAiur]

Burden, because it used to be free...

That will be a popular argument in the future, when related to content that was free under the original SC. In order for something to look like a bargain, it must be either new or cheaper than it used to be.

But blizzard could point to how you have to pay to watch tournaments in korea (RIP gom )

[The_Blade]

But blizzard could point to how you have to pay to watch tournaments in korea (RIP gom )

Yes the live tournament, but replays should still be free after a week or two after the tournament.

[ArcherofAiur]

Yes the live tournament, but replays should still be free after a week or two after the tournament.

But allot arnt.

[Gifted]

Archer, this would be considered a burden by the terms that the statement means in the industry. The reason is that the "identity" of a replay is considered free. The quality of the replay or the value of the content is not judged so much as it's merely judged as "a replay". In the same fashion, when you go to the movie theatre.. the identity of the movie you are going to see is judged by the fact that it's a "movie" and not a high quality or low quality movie.

To explain how this works in another angle, the "identity" of a map is more flexible. There can be high quality maps and low quality maps. This is relational to the game industry as a whole. You can purchase what's generally considered "low quality" games for a lesser cost and pay for high quality maps for a higher cost. This creates a flexible identify for that style of content.

The identity of the content that would cost (or not cost money) helps in judging if it would be considered a bargain or a burden. Since the identity of a replay is more generic and not flexible, it becomes a burden when you try to place more value to one replay to another.

A better way of saying it is going to the movie theatre and hearing that two different movies in the exact time slot cost different amounts. One movie could be Lord of the Rings, which lasts for 3 hours, another could be a comedy that lasts for 70 minutes...

While it might make sense, it's not aligned with the public "identity" of "going to a movie" We're used to it being "Afternoon costs" or "evening costs".

I'm sure others can relate this to the true ideals of it being identified by supply/demand variations... but I felt analogies typically work better for ya Archer. (No offense intended, trying to communicate best with ya)