Blizzard fail.

[SleepyHe4d]

Mmm... Well regardless of the actual spending and prices, my point was would it justify stealing? Sorry I just don't like everyone trying to justify stealing these days when the simple fact is that they aren't fans of the game and are just thieves when the circumstances don't suit them, or maybe they are thieves all the time or for anything that they aren't true fans of.

If you're not fan enough to pay extra for extra then just don't pay extra, don't break the law until everyone respects you, this isn't a freakin gang war between gamers and the market.

I just realized this post kind of leans towards the SC2 situation but it's the same logic with this Bnet stuff too.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Was anyone talking about pirating or theft?

 

[SleepyHe4d]

Well that's why I brought up spending 1k or more on PCs anyhow, it didn't necessarily need to be true, was just making a point.

It shouldn't be hard for people here to understand either, most people here are PC gaming fans and are willing to spend 1k - 3k on a new pc every couple years instead of just $400 on a console.

Yeah guys, lets start boycotting buying 1k+ PCs and start stealing them from our local stores so they will start selling them to us at the same price of consoles! It's the right thing to do and is justified for this and that, ect, ect!

Maybe you took the bolded section as meaning you should spend more on games and services if you're willing to spend more on PCs? No, that's not what I was getting at. What I meant by that part was I was agreeing that you shouldn't hate on fans for wanting to spend more on things they are fans of. Don't really need the PC costs more argument for you to be able to understand that do I?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Well that's why I brought up spending 1k or more on PCs anyhow, it didn't necessarily need to be true, was just making a point.

I see, you brought it up.

I'm just not sure what point you were trying to make. Nobody else was talking about stealing something, unless you mean references to bnetd, which is not an illegal software.

 

[SleepyHe4d]

Yeah I wasn't really disagreeing to any post in here that I can remember, I was just agreeing with that guy that there's nothing wrong with being a fan and then I decided to throw that sarcasm against piracy in there since I always see piracy support in these types of situations.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The Fanboy term is getting kicked around rather a lot.

You know it's not a revolutionary discovery that people who like things are willing to make more sacrifices(pay) for the things they like.

Except you guys use the word like it's an insult. Which is odd. Does it cause bitterness in you guys to know someone likes something you can't appreciate and that they might be able to still enjoy it where you can't?

Flinging around the "Fanboy" term is a poor substitute for a good argument. There are plenty of ways(Which are more efficient) to complain about this issue(and others) without bitterly attacking people who are barely relevant to the issue.

I decided to respond to this.

The term fanboy, in this context, is referring to someone who will pay for something that has no intrinsic value simply because it is produced by a certain company. Basically, Blizzard could release a $9.99 expansion for Warcraft 3 where all it did was change the color of one of the characters and we can safely assume that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people would stand in line to buy it.

My problem is that monetizing any of Battle.net will probably mean monetizing anything that makes playing through Battle.net more convenient (matchmaking, friends lists, leagues, etc). What I was getting at in an earlier post is that there are so many people that would pay for that that Blizzard would never get the message that people didn't want to pay for what they already get for free in other games (even other Blizzard games) like Microsoft did with Live!.

 

[shadow_dragon]

I decided to respond to this.

The term fanboy, in this context, is referring to someone who will pay for something that has no intrinsic value...

.... It has no value to you.

I believe I already asked the question as to whether it causes bitterness in you to know someone appreciates something you don't?

My problem is that monetizing any of Battle.net will probably mean monetizing anything that makes playing through Battle.net more convenient (matchmaking, friends lists, leagues, etc). What I was getting at in an earlier post is that there are so many people that would pay for that that Blizzard would never get the message that people didn't want to pay for what they already get for free in other games (even other Blizzard games) like Microsoft did with Live!.

So your worried that you not valueing it enough to want to pay for it wont be enough to inspire Blizzard to make something free that you don't appear to really want anyway because a vast majority of people do value it enough to want to pay for it(potentially, they might not)...

 

[Sir_Brizz]

.... It has no value to you.

No... it has no intrinsic value. What I mean is, they develop it once and charge you a recurring amount for it. The recurring fee is for something that then takes no effort to continue developing in order to make revenue from it.

So your worried that you not valueing it enough to want to pay for it wont be enough to inspire Blizzard to make something free that you don't appear to really want anyway because a vast majority of people do value it enough to want to pay for it(potentially, they might not)...

No, I'm saying REGARDLESS of how many people don't buy it (in protest or not), enough people will buy it to make them happy with it.

 

[shadow_dragon]

No... it has no intrinsic value. What I mean is, they develop it once and charge you a recurring amount for it. The recurring fee is for something that then takes no effort to continue developing in order to make revenue from it.

What is value other than what people are willing to pay?
Also why do you assume that they will take no "Effort" to continue developing it in order to make revenue from it?

No, I'm saying REGARDLESS of how many people don't buy it (in protest or not), enough people will buy it to make them happy with it.

The correct answer then, was yes.
Though the lack of a question mark was somewhat indicitive of it being rhetorical in the first place. *wink*

 

[DarQraven]

Value is subjective, that's true.
However, I don't believe the usual "don't like it enough, don't buy it" argument is really fitting here.

The thing with games is, there are only so many. And only few of those are good. Whether or not you like one of these is also a personal matter. It's not like, say, apples, where you can just buy one of the other thousands of apples if one is rotten.

If you are a fan, or at least enjoy one of those great titles, and the developer then decides to alienate you... what do you do?
Of course you're going to be bitter. You just lost 1 great title that you would otherwise have enjoyed.
The standard answer to this is: just go play something else.
Yeah, because that works in a time when only 1 in maybe 5 games released is even worthwhile, let alone great.
Furthermore, none of them will ever be that one game, since everything is protected by IP copyrights.

There is a (subjective) value for everything. But there is also a line above which raising prices becomes ripping people off. That line is when, for instance, a company makes enormous profits under the guise of 'covering support expenses and server upkeep', and then suddenly starts charging more for other products that don't even need said expenses.
That's just cash milking, plain and simple, that they can get away with because half of the people buying their products have no clue what a server even looks like.

 

[carmatic]

im thinking this ... starcraft 2 will have a terran-based single player, and normal starcraft multiplayer i.e. all 3 races will be in it... then if you want to play as a protoss or zerg through their storylines, you have to buy their expansion packs... hopefully these expansion packs will be strictly single player and cheaper than a full game, like they shouldnt come with anything that breaks the multiplayer for people who didnt buy the expansion packs...

diablo 2 is further out as they said, and again hopefully multiplayer doesnt mean paying more by the time its released...

 

[shoptroll]

im thinking this ... starcraft 2 will have a terran-based single player, and normal starcraft multiplayer i.e. all 3 races will be in it... then if you want to play as a protoss or zerg through their storylines, you have to buy their expansion packs... hopefully these expansion packs will be strictly single player and cheaper than a full game, like they shouldnt come with anything that breaks the multiplayer for people who didnt buy the expansion packs...

They've already confirmed that new multiplayer units will be added in the expansion packs. So yeah, it's not much different than Starcraft, just there's two expansions and they went nuts regarding the campaign structure.

 

[carmatic]

ahh... mustve missed that

it sounds like not only the campaign structure is different, but the whole structure of this expansion pack thing is different... instead of extending the story with expansion packs, they are revisiting the same story from different perspectives... thats what it sounds like to me, anyway

 

[Fuzzle]

There are some videos up from the terran campaign. As far as I understand it, the terran campaign revolves around teching and research, the zerg around politics (of all things), and protoss about "adventure".

 

[Dark Pulse]

"We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features," said Wilson. "We kind of have to."

What, the probably $200 million a month you make off of World of Warcraft isn't enough revenue?

**** you, greedy *******s. I'm glad I don't play any of Blizzard's games online.

 

[shoptroll]

it sounds like not only the campaign structure is different, but the whole structure of this expansion pack thing is different... instead of extending the story with expansion packs, they are revisiting the same story from different perspectives... thats what it sounds like to me, anyway

It'll be interesting, but I'm not totally sure if I can see myself being excited enough to wait a year to hear the story retold from the Zerg side, and then another year for the Protoss spin.

I'm with DP. It's a bit sickening given the fact that they rake in a ton of money off WoW. However, the latest spin sounds more like value-added features (like character realm transfers in WoW) not connection fees... Or at least I hope they're not considering connection fees.

 

[Shadow]

What, the probably $200 million a month you make off of World of Warcraft isn't enough revenue?

**** you, greedy *******s. I'm glad I don't play any of Blizzard's games online.

Not that I dont agree but I think I've heard a lot of that WoW money goes to vivendi also.

 

[SlayerDragon]

COMPANIES ARE MAKING A LOT OF MONEY AND THEY STILL CHARGE ME FOR STUFF WHAT THE HELL

 

[Evill_Bob]

... online..? You mean anything that Blizzard makes that isn't World of Warcraft was meant to be played online?

I never really liked playing other people on Blizzard's stuff unless it was on network play so nothing that involves me unless WoW goes that way unless it already is then it's okay since it's still cheaper than any other pay-per-month MMO worth a dime. Which I doubt unless they get lazy then it's time to find a knew game anyways.

 

[JaFO]

What is value other than what people are willing to pay?

Value as in "the cost of the resources + value added by the production
process".
Value as in "there is only a limited supply".

If said production-process = "copy a, b" with zero resources required (as happens with any digital reproduction of an item) then one could definitely say that the endresult has no value as there simply is an endless supply of the product.

Any other industry would have been found guilty of racketeering if they had tried to make money in the way the multi-media-industry do.