|
This is for the SC2 global community. A week ago I posted this thread “Summary of SC 2 prices” on the discussion forums. To summarize, the region's prices are high.
Yesterday Blizzard (Blizzard Entertainment) invited a couple of regular posters on a popular Singaporean gaming forum for a dinner talk on the issue of high prices on the region. Their intentions: to get some community feedback on the SG (Singapore) community with regards to SC2 and wanted feedback on the directions in which they could help develop the gaming community in the region. Attendees included Kevin Yu, Blizzard RTS communtiy manager, Ryan, PR, Blizzard and the head of advertising + Chief Operations Officer of IAH, the regional distributor of SC2 in SE Asia. (Who's names I think no one in TL cares about yes?)
One of the attendees posted a summary of the discussion which quantifies the high price to 3 main points.
- Game longevity
+ Show Spoiler +1. You're paying for a Blizzard Game that's bound to last for a long, long time.
That's right. People can look at Starcraft, or Diablo II, or Warcraft 3 and realize just how freakishly long Blizzard has been supporting this game. This is where Cost vs Value comes in. As opposed to the typical 'latest' RTS like let's say.. Company of Heroes or Dawn of War II which are remarkable RTS in their own right, the 'good times' in these games when the community was at its critical mass for the game to be really fun didn't last very long. But the main point is this: Blizzard's games have a stupendously crazy habit for possessing freakishly long life cycles spanning ten years or so.
I don't really care for the marketing slogans like 'Best Single Player experience' or 'Best Multiplayer experience' or whatever. They don't work for me when the RTS genre has spread out so diversely, having a RTS experience that's declared the 'best ever' isn't going to sit well with me. After all these years of the RTS genre evolving with cover systems and 'realistic' kinds of gameplay where typical infantry rifles can do nothing vs heavily armored vehicles, there're certainly going to have people who will think that SC2 is taking a huge evolutionary step backwards. Nothing wrong with that opinion.
But let's put things into perspective here: I've been playing WoW on and off since '06, and I've bound to have spent at least...
Vanilla WoW + BC + WoTLK = 80 + 60 + 60 = 200 Subscription = Total two years subscription = 24 months x 25 = 600.
I've spent about S$800 on WoW through the years. Now, think about a game that's going to last as long, or possibly longer than WoW and has the potential to serve as a future platform of long-term gaming that's slated to replace Warcraft III. If you have seen the level of features and functionality Blizzard has thrown at the typical user with the Map Editor, that potential is exponentially expanded.
Think about it. The S$109 you're paying for is going to last just that long instead of a Company of Heroes that remains hot for 2-3 years at most. Believe me, I'm thoroughly in love with CoH and still think that DoW2 falls short of that game, but the community for that game is somewhat dead.
Game longevity. That's the Value that you're going to pay for your S$109.
- Local competitive / non-competitive event support
+ Show Spoiler +2. Local competitive/non-competitive event support.
For the past 7-8 years, many gamers including myself have been observing places like Korea, Europe or USA with unbridled envy that they could have such awesome competitive/eSports support in their countries and have gaming as a widespread mainstream thing as a result. Here in Singapore we still have our parents who mock gaming, etc, you all know it. For years, people like my clan, [Bf.Nut] have been trying so hard to foster this competitive eSports thing, but without a big name to aid us in this country it hasn't always taken off completely without getting really big like in Korea.
But Blizzard is in town now, and if anything, they seem serious to place a foothold in Southeast Asia. I don't know how else they could've expressed it better by having their global community manager to hang around in Singapore for at least a week, and plopping down that investment to open an office here. These people mean business, and if we can take things into perspective, if we can help Blizzard to succeed in this endeavor, I don't reckon there's anything to stop Singapore from turning into something like Korea. Wouldn't we want to have something like that? I know for sure that as a gamer I've been hungering after this opportunity for the past 7 years. No longer do we need to always adhere to the Korean/US tournaments, and fly for 8/18 hours to those respective countries, play for 20 minutes get our asses kicked and come back. Competitively I don't think we'd learn anything that way. Perhaps this time we could take a train to KL, kick ass/get asses kicked and come back knowing that we've learnt something. And that can be made possible with Blizzard SEA in town and given the business incentive to remain in town.
That's the Value that you might be getting out of your S$109.
- Better latency
+ Show Spoiler +3. Better latency. But NEWater! The US beta is already good enough! Why do we need to be localized?
I asked the same thing. I remarked that the region-locking proposal was probably a victim of the US beta's success. Players of the US beta will concur with me in saying that the experience with the US beta is indeed, excellent. I could kick arse comfortably even if I have 250ms latency. But the response I received was because the playerbase on US beta is already, very small. Thinking about it, my typical login screen will inform me of just how many players there are on Battle.net now, and there'd be an average of 9000+ games played at any one time. That's probably 27,000 players on average and it's unlikely we'd be sharing the US Battle.net server with just 27,000 players when the game launches and the collective lag generated by that much more traffic will kill us.
That's the explanation I was given. So, maybe region locking is somewhat reasonable, after all. That's possibly the Value you might be getting out of your S$109
Firstly, I have to bring up the whole absurdity of the situation. A developing market is being taxed by a firm specifically for its own long term development. I am a little flabbergasted by the whole point because anyone who has been playing computer games would know theres a reason why its illegal to re-sell games bought SE-Asian countries in America / Europe. They are priced lower precisely to entice the lower income population in the region and have lower production costs that compromise on manuals / box art etc. And yet you are telling me this region is ripe for competitive gaming all of a sudden?
I will not discuss the first point because it fails to address why the region is paying extra but I guess it tries to make the case why the game is more expensive then other games.
We have been given the impression that Blizzard wishes to be involved in the long term development of SC 2 competitive gaming in the region yet there has been no concrete announcements of any major partnerships except promise of a tech support office in Singapore. There has been no official announcement by the company itself or any semblance of a framework. In fact, it feels like the rabbit was randomly pulled from the hat. In essence, the region is paying Blizzard to commit to something it has failed to do everywhere in the world except Korea. (And even Blizzard support for competitive gaming in Korea is dubious at best)
I would really like some alternative view points on this, as an Economics student, I cant help but feel that this is all a smokescreen to distract from the truth that Blizzard and the regional distributor are simply out to recoup their initial investment costs (specifically the investments in servers / offices) in the region asap rather then having a true long term framework for the development of pro-gaming in SE Asia.
I argue that if they truly have an agenda for SC 2 as a competitive e-sport, why would they specifically admit to having higher costs for a region? instead of quantifying the price of SC 2 globally?.
Sources IAHGames, regional distributor Tech support Topic started by attendee
|
Ugh, obvious ass-kissing by NEWater. Poorly thought out points.
1. Forgotten and ignorant about expansion packs.
2. US USD60. US still have tournaments. Korea do Kespa. So, SEA use Blizz/IAH? After poorly handling Hellgate?
3. Wrong. Gateways.
Arrrrrr....... who's up for some swashbuckling?
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Great, more localized gateways to strangle global competition. Basically this guy just posted the PR points as an article - great journalism. To suggest the price jack is anything more than means to recuperate infrastructure costs is pretty lol - i hope someone raged in that meeting at these talking points.....Just be straight PR team. Its costs.
|
There's one direction Blizzard is moving in - towards more money.
That's the only common denominator of all their recent decisions, and users suffer.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
"so maybe region locking is reasonable after all" - yeah, stay in Singapore and never compete against the rest of the world...that sounds like a good plan.
I do agree with "exhaustive bureaucracy" though
|
This is gonna suck hard for me as australia is also grouped in this. I have played broodwar for years with US friends, as well as some sc2 beta, and now blizzard is telling us we can't play together anymore
|
What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ?
|
On June 02 2010 20:30 Boonbag wrote: What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ?
Couldn't agree more. People have been making great and successful games for a long time and it's never had to require this much cash dumping. Maybe Blizz has let the success of their other games and the current hype of SC2 go to their heads?
|
Playing devils advocate here but..I think everyone on the blizz PR team would admit that they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. How could they possible know exactly how to handle selling a VIDEO GAME as if it was some precious resource like gold or silver. I pretty much agree with everything that the "well informed" haters have to say. But guys remember that nobody has ever had this kind of opportunity before. Blizz is just taking baby steps, would you rather have them f*cking up everything by saying that we're going to only deal with people that we want, on our time, and making up their own rules along the way? Blizz is just trying to make sure that this game makes money. Don't hate on blizz for their marketing or politics, if you really cared about what is happening (me included) you would go on blizz forums and post about b.net and lan etc...
|
On June 02 2010 20:30 Boonbag wrote: What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ?
I agree... Blizzard's recent communication if so aggressive and arrogant.
|
As the poster of that abovementioned thread who's getting attacked here, my explanation is that what I typed out was what they discussed with the gamers present and I passed it on to the forum in the spirit of that very same discussion.
In my personal POV, I don't give a toss and I will most likely purchase the US edition because I'm headed stateside for college by 1Q next year and to have my game trapped in the SEA region will do me no favors. The only reason I decided to go for the meeting when invited is because the community in Singapore was breathing fire, there were idiots chasing their own tails generating more and more ridiculous assumptions and thinking that our gamers deserve some manner of transparency I took the time out for the meet 'n write.
But still, there're always going to be idiots in any community. There're people still making their own silly little assumptions despite of what I wrote on that very thread, because they probably didn't read in the first place. Unfortunately, the people who possessed the raging opinions were also invited to go for the meeting but declined to go, because despite of their opinions of righteous fury they could suddenly indicate that they felt 'uncomfortable' about a RL meetup. So there you have it - the keyboard warrior mentality.
I'm someone who's better known as a competitive FPS gamer who's moved on to MMOs. Even if I do enjoy all genres and have a particular liking for RTS, I'm not someone who's utterly devoted to RTS and spend most of my time looking at the game-related fansites. But I'm still a concerned gamer and that's what motivated me to do what I did: because I hate ignorance, I hate the keyboard warrior culture and the keyboard warriors are still crying despite of my efforts.
|
Just curious, are there any tariff or taxes that might be artificially raising the price?
|
On June 02 2010 21:12 NEWater wrote: As the poster of that abovementioned thread who's getting attacked here, my explanation is that what I typed out was what they discussed with the gamers present and I passed it on to the forum in the spirit of that very same discussion.
In my personal POV, I don't give a toss and I will most likely purchase the US edition because I'm headed stateside for college by 1Q next year and to have my game trapped in the SEA region will do me no favors. The only reason I decided to go for the meeting when invited is because the community in Singapore was breathing fire, there were idiots chasing their own tails generating more and more ridiculous assumptions and thinking that our gamers deserve some manner of transparency I took the time out for the meet 'n write.
But still, there're always going to be idiots in any community. There're people still making their own silly little assumptions despite of what I wrote on that very thread, because they probably didn't read in the first place. Unfortunately, the people who possessed the raging opinions were also invited to go for the meeting but declined to go, because despite of their opinions of righteous fury they could suddenly indicate that they felt 'uncomfortable' about a RL meetup. So there you have it - the keyboard warrior mentality.
I'm someone who's better known as a competitive FPS gamer who's moved on to MMOs. Even if I do enjoy all genres and have a particular liking for RTS, I'm not someone who's utterly devoted to RTS and spend most of my time looking at the game-related fansites. But I'm still a concerned gamer and that's what motivated me to do what I did: because I hate ignorance, I hate the keyboard warrior culture and the keyboard warriors are still crying despite of my efforts.
Don't worry, the iview sounds just like you.
|
On June 02 2010 21:13 Takkara wrote: Just curious, are there any tariff or taxes that might be artificially raising the price?
To my knowledge, no. Maybe just the additional $2 or something for the M-rating sticker.
|
On June 02 2010 21:15 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 21:12 NEWater wrote: As the poster of that abovementioned thread who's getting attacked here, my explanation is that what I typed out was what they discussed with the gamers present and I passed it on to the forum in the spirit of that very same discussion.
In my personal POV, I don't give a toss and I will most likely purchase the US edition because I'm headed stateside for college by 1Q next year and to have my game trapped in the SEA region will do me no favors. The only reason I decided to go for the meeting when invited is because the community in Singapore was breathing fire, there were idiots chasing their own tails generating more and more ridiculous assumptions and thinking that our gamers deserve some manner of transparency I took the time out for the meet 'n write.
But still, there're always going to be idiots in any community. There're people still making their own silly little assumptions despite of what I wrote on that very thread, because they probably didn't read in the first place. Unfortunately, the people who possessed the raging opinions were also invited to go for the meeting but declined to go, because despite of their opinions of righteous fury they could suddenly indicate that they felt 'uncomfortable' about a RL meetup. So there you have it - the keyboard warrior mentality.
I'm someone who's better known as a competitive FPS gamer who's moved on to MMOs. Even if I do enjoy all genres and have a particular liking for RTS, I'm not someone who's utterly devoted to RTS and spend most of my time looking at the game-related fansites. But I'm still a concerned gamer and that's what motivated me to do what I did: because I hate ignorance, I hate the keyboard warrior culture and the keyboard warriors are still crying despite of my efforts. Don't worry, the iview sounds just like you.
Iview?
I'm unsure of what you mean with that sole sentence.
|
I'm someone who's better known as a competitive FPS gamer who's moved on to MMOs. Even if I do enjoy all genres and have a particular liking for RTS, I'm not someone who's utterly devoted to RTS and spend most of my time looking at the game-related fansites. But I'm still a concerned gamer and that's what motivated me to do what I did: because I hate ignorance, I hate the keyboard warrior culture and the keyboard warriors are still crying despite of my efforts.
Did you play competitive battlefield 2142/2? You're name is awfully familiar. I probably scrimmed/played against you for some tournament.
|
I heard from some SE friends I used to play SC:BW with that distributors there are corrupt and they always get shafted in online games, but I dunno personally. I just don't like the fact that even now we have to wait for WCG and global events for the best players in the world to play against each other or else force them to buy multiple copies of the same game just for multi-player.
|
Yep exactly, esports will never be big in Aus or NZ and I really doubt it will take off in SG as we all share the low populations, though being much closer to large gaming populations might help SG. It still sucks for all of us but I'm hoping Aus can bail out of this trainwreck T_T
|
On June 02 2010 21:29 zoltanium wrote:Show nested quote + I'm someone who's better known as a competitive FPS gamer who's moved on to MMOs. Even if I do enjoy all genres and have a particular liking for RTS, I'm not someone who's utterly devoted to RTS and spend most of my time looking at the game-related fansites. But I'm still a concerned gamer and that's what motivated me to do what I did: because I hate ignorance, I hate the keyboard warrior culture and the keyboard warriors are still crying despite of my efforts.
Did you play competitive battlefield 2142/2? You're name is awfully familiar. I probably scrimmed/played against you for some tournament.
I have. [Bf.Nut] NEWater. We've probably met on the Battlefield 2 World Tournament.
|
On June 02 2010 19:38 Perfect Balance wrote: There's one direction Blizzard is moving in - towards more money.
That's the only common denominator of all their recent decisions, and users suffer.
OMG really? You sir are a genious Dude, who doesn't. Do Restaurants give food for free, Does a Hospital operate for free, don't you have to pay for clothes, or gas, Will Your Girlfriend marry you if your a Cheap-ass? Don't know what world you might be living in, one thing is for sure tho, on Mother Earth MONEY TALKS, get over it, its pretty obvious Blizzard will set a price to any of its products, complaining about it its pointless, once the product is out if you consider its worth the money you'll buy the damn thing. Buying SC2 is not an Obligation.
On the other hand. a little sarcasm plz? + Show Spoiler +There's one direction Automotive is moving in - towards money. Wish I could talk to Ettore Bugatti or Jean Bugatti so they could set a lower price to its products.
|
Sad to hear that IAH will be the company host for SEA Region.
*sighs*
|
On June 02 2010 20:30 Boonbag wrote: What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ?
3 words for you : Robert A Kotick
|
I find the assumption that e-Sports will take off in SG is utter BS. If you know the average mentality of a Singaporean parent. STUDY STUDY STUDY!
Hence I'm buying the US version. Apart from the extreme price hike, the majority of keyboard warriors in SEA servers is just..... can't even have a good game with half the people screaming at you cause you messed up.
|
Vanilla WoW + BC + WoTLK = 80 + 60 + 60 = 200 Subscription = Total two years subscription = 24 months x 25 = 600.
I've spent about S$800 on WoW through the years. Now, think about a game that's going to last as long, or possibly longer than WoW and has the potential to serve as a future platform of long-term gaming that's slated to replace Warcraft III. If you have seen the level of features and functionality Blizzard has thrown at the typical user with the Map Editor, that potential is exponentially expanded.
Think about it. The S$109 you're paying for is going to last just that long instead of a Company of Heroes that remains hot for 2-3 years at most .
I agree. SC2 should be S$800.
I'm not someone who's utterly devoted to RTS and spend most of my time looking at the game-related fansites.
Yeah man, who would spend all their time on a fansite for a game? What losers eh
|
I don't really see what ppl are whining about when it comes to the price, cus here at least starcraft 2 is cheaper than most other new games coming out.
|
On June 02 2010 20:30 Boonbag wrote: What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ?
I completely agree with you.
|
On June 02 2010 22:21 danbel1005 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 19:38 Perfect Balance wrote: There's one direction Blizzard is moving in - towards more money.
That's the only common denominator of all their recent decisions, and users suffer. OMG really? You sir are a genious Dude, who doesn't. Do Restaurants give food for free, Does a Hospital operate for free, don't you have to pay for clothes, or gas, Will Your Girlfriend marry you if your a Cheap-ass? Don't know what world you might be living in, one thing is for sure tho, on Mother Earth MONEY TALKS, get over it, its pretty obvious Blizzard will set a price to any of its products, complaining about it its pointless, once the product is out if you consider its worth the money you'll buy the damn thing. Buying SC2 is not an Obligation. On the other hand. a little sarcasm plz? + Show Spoiler +There's one direction Automotive is moving in - towards money. Wish I could talk to Ettore Bugatti or Jean Bugatti so they could set a lower price to its products.
Theres a difference between just making a product and selling it and squeezing every last drop of money you can from someone. Im not gonna pay to use a napkin at a restaurant.
Oh and public health care is pretty cool
|
The only fear i have from buying the US version is that it will lag a lot. I really do not wish to play in the asian servers.
|
On June 02 2010 20:30 Boonbag wrote: What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ?
Pardon me, but i guess they lost their more talented staff, who have went off in search of greener pastures. Compare the blizzard of today and that of the past - obviously the past blizzard made decisions that were much better and accounted more to the gamers. Now, all this staff have went off in search of other up and rising companies - leaving substandard people to take over their jobs.
So, some guy just comes in and takes over important positions in the company. They make decisions based on their own judgment - they do not care about the gamers in general, thinking that all the gamers are saying are complete bullshit and only their judgment matters. They trust themselves so much that it has backfired. I'm sure that the facebook integration crap was due to some employee who thought that he had struck gold after he had the idea of using facebook since facebook was what connected "everyone" and would thus serve as the BEST platform for people to add friends. They could just pay a small fee to facebook to allow the integration and voila! - nobody can spoof anymore.
Problem is, they are so narrow minded that they do not give a hoot about people that do not use facebook. Basically, from everything i have seen, Blizzard just seems to give this message to everyone,"Either conform to our terms, or get your stinking ass out of our sight. We are the best, so we do not need to care about others. If you aren't happy with our game, then go find some other developer. But we know that you will still come back to us since we develop the best games." They are trying to dominate global eSports, competitions and anything related to games
|
I hope this improves the eSports scene in Singapore. Right now it's just a bunch of garbage DotA leagues and the only way we can compete in games like starcraft its in WCG, which is haphazardly ran. Ever since the screwup with Hellgate London i can never trust the quality of IAHgame's services, i hope they do better this time.
|
On June 02 2010 15:02 wwiv wrote: That's right. People can look at Starcraft, or Diablo II, or Warcraft 3 and realize just how freakishly long Blizzard has been supporting this game.
Those were Blizzard games, not Activision Blizzard games. CoD:MW2 was released last November, this month Activision released a U$15 "stimulus package" (read: map pack). It even included maps from the first Modern Warfare game.
EDIT: Funny thing is that NO producers of BW work at Activision Blizzard in 2010, some programmers are still around.
|
1. You're paying for a Blizzard Game that's bound to last for a long, long time.
So they are going to switch their model and try to kill their own game? I don't undertand how taking what made blizzard a great company and shitting all over it and feeding it to us is going to make the game last better.
|
On June 02 2010 23:25 Roflhaxx wrote: I don't really see what ppl are whining about when it comes to the price, cus here at least starcraft 2 is cheaper than most other new games coming out.
well not in Poland :D they even rised price for it -_-; and now the most akward part - buing in uk (along with delivery payment) is cheaper than buying in shop next door :D
this pretty much looks like blizz is trying to ripp off no english speaking comunity (specialy now when they translate game on their own instead of 3rd party how it used to be here - even then game was cheaper ... )
|
The Q&A makes me feel happier for pre-ordering the game from USA.
No way my money is going to them for those kind of rubbish reasons.
|
On June 03 2010 01:25 MadLag wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 23:25 Roflhaxx wrote: I don't really see what ppl are whining about when it comes to the price, cus here at least starcraft 2 is cheaper than most other new games coming out. well not in Poland :D they even rised price for it -_-; and now the most akward part - buing in uk (along with delivery payment) is cheaper than buying in shop next door :D this pretty much looks like blizz is trying to ripp off no english speaking comunity (specialy now when they translate game on their own instead of 3rd party how it used to be here - even then game was cheaper ... )
Yeah, the present price is just ridiculous :D. But the initial rage against it won't stop most of the players.
|
I posted a thread explaining how the whole SE Asia thing is a cost cutting (covering) exercise, but was closed on the basis that it was obvious and common knowledge.
Anyhow, basically because Blizzard's new battle.net design is client-server rather than peer2peer their bandwidth costs will be a lot higher, and international traffic is more expensive than local. It's just plain cheaper for them to plonk Australia, New Zealand, Singapore etc on a more localised server.
Sure, WoW was client-server with servers based in the US for sg, nz and aus players, but that was supported by a 20$ a month fee.
It's all about money.
|
Blizzard's pro-gaming intentions in general: -Remove cross realm, maybe add it later -Remove LAN so instant unit response isn't even a possibility anymore -Remove chatrooms so that organizing tournaments without going through them becomes a huge pain -Ask for more money to play their game in general because poor Blizzard is just having a hard time getting by these days (shed a tear for them here) -Screw the one organization that managed to just about bring their video game to sport level because they weren't accepting total control and ownership of all produced content by Blizztard. Silly them!
My my, that whole attidude has some really huge potential for Blizzard's wall... uh.. I mean ESPORTS growth!
Trying to nickel and dime at every corner will never see this game become a sport. In fact, Blizzard really don't want it to, because to develop as a "sport", you need enough independence for players and tournament organizers to easily set things up themselves. And the last thing Blizzard wants to give players or organizers is any kind of independence, as evidenced by every single decision regarding Bnet 2.0 as of late. Would be too hard to charge users for "premium service" if they have even the option to step out of line for a minute.
|
I'll choose KR one for playing on Asia server instead of SEA Server lol
|
On June 03 2010 01:00 Caos2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 15:02 wwiv wrote: That's right. People can look at Starcraft, or Diablo II, or Warcraft 3 and realize just how freakishly long Blizzard has been supporting this game. Those were Blizzard games, not Activision Blizzard games. CoD:MW2 was released last November, this month Activision released a U$15 "stimulus package" (read: map pack). It even included maps from the first Modern Warfare game. EDIT: Funny thing is that NO producers of BW work at Activision Blizzard in 2010, some programmers are still around.
Mike Morihame and Frank Pearce, two of Blizzard's founders, still work there. From what I could find out the majority of people that left were from the diablo team, not starcraft.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=71614
there's a list of some of the Blizzard employees working on sc2 and their experience
|
On June 02 2010 23:31 SubtleArt wrote: Theres a difference between just making a product and selling it and squeezing every last drop of money you can from someone. Im not gonna pay to use a napkin at a restaurant.
Except you probably already are...I'm pretty certain that the $11 burger plate I got at the local sports bar isn't covering only the burger.
|
What the fuck is wrong with these people? I know they are very aware of the community; how can they keep pretending that the localized portals are ok? As soon as a hacked bnet is available everyone will be there.
They're not even lying to make it sound better or anything. Blizz should fire their PR department for making the company sound like money-grubbing fuckers. Even if they are assholes isn't a PR department there so they don't come off as that?
|
Agreed with thopol^^, What direction is blizzard going to? The direction that leads them to the bank. Honestly this region locking no LAN will make Starcraft II last half~ as long as Broodwar. mark my words if there is no change.
|
longevity...? $20 for Counter-strike... $50 for SC battlechest $50 for D2 battlechest
all games that still have good communities.
60+(40?)+(40?) for SC2? SC2 will be recording breaking game for pirating because of blizzard's marketing.
|
Hey Guys, being an engineering student and seeing this topic about the high prices in each reason. Looking at the post of the low SC2 prices in other countries such as Russia but having to pay a subscription fee, you are pretty much paying extra to be able to play online for as long as you want. Seems like more than half the cost of the game is a one-time payment to be able to use battle.net indefinitely. For this arguement I'm not going to include the cost of expansions, but the principal will be very similar to future expansions.
First off, time is indeed, money. One dollar today may not be equal to that same dollar a year from now. It's called inflation. The rate of inflation can also be the interest rate. Rates of inflation can vary from region to region. A company version's of interest is based on a MARR, more on that later.
For games that have an annual subscription fee, such as WoW and other MMO's, it is better off to use an annual fee rather than a giant lump-sum in order to use their service. But in order to keep the subscription base going, they need to add new content to keep their subscribers happy, or else the current content gets boring and will soon lose interest and cancels their subscription. They also (relatively) consume more bandwith than simple Client-Peer games such as Starcraft. Starcraft 2, which uses less bandwith and no future content other than expansions, simply tags an additional fee to their product which is equavalent to a lifetime subscription to that game, which is much better than having to buy game cards or setting up an online payment plan.
Without going into extreme detail, the amount that you would pay today which is equivalent to annual costs in your lifetime is A/i, in which A is the annual cost, and i is the annual interest rate. A few problems for the normal user is that the interest rate varies thoughout each region depending on its economy, as well as the annual cost based on the cost of service to that region. For companies such as Blizzard, in which is always in for making a least a profit with their games, their interest rate is determined by the rate in which they can make a return on their investment (in this case, the cost of developing SC2). This rate can be determined by a variety of variables, such as how many sales they would get, how long it's going to sell, and probably the most obvious, how many sales before the next expansion. If at least, the total sales cover the cost of development before the next expansion, then the Minimal Annual Return Rate (or MARR) would be relatively high (10% to 15%). Quick example would be a $100 investment and you get back $60 each year for 2 years. It's much better to have that than getting a $40 return each year for 3 years. Both examples net you a total of $120 but the getting that $120 a year earler feels better than getting $80 and waiting for the rest next year, right? (If you ever win the lottery, always go for the lump sum if possible!!)
So back to SC2 pricing, by comparing the two prices based on full subscription and subscription prices, it's clear that there's two parts in buying SC2: Cost of purchasing the product and being able to play its Single Player Campaigns, and the cost of battle.net service. Unline WoW, SC2 will never constantly update radical new content other than the numerous patches for game balance, you will always get what's in the box no matter what (if you consider SC2 Expansions as new content, you're paying for them). This also makes paying a one-time subscription fee more easier to implement to more people due to the less need of setting up annual payment methods. The added cost to play battle.net is simply the equavalent cost of you playing on their battle.net servers annually for life. If The game would cost $25, but you have to play (let's say) $10/year to play on their battle.net servers, at a MARR of 20% (reasonably high since the expected rate of return is 2 years, before the next expansion). You would end up paying a total of $75 (25 for the game, 50 for the battle.net).
Once again, this is just an example, we know that we can get SC2 cheaper than the prices right now, but at least gives you an idea of how they set price points on products with an online subscription that you have to pay one-time. There are a lot of variables to determine that leads up to that price value in those regions. If you find that your SC2 costs more than other countries, think about the costs that it would require to bring it to your country (increased base cost), the cost of bandwith for battle.net for that region (increased annual costs), and the amount of product they expect to sell in that region (lower MARR). Consider these factors, and you know why they it's hard to create a relatively fixed price point throughout many regions.
To reflect on the first post, of course Blizzard needs to cover their initial development costs, but if you consider the factors involved in bring the game over to that region, do you expect Blizzard to operate battle.net at a loss in that region and have to start undercutting service there? In Blizzard's view of e-sports, it's the availability of the product that allows the player to participate, not the cost of the product
|
they want to get payed after i bought their game? FUCK THEM.
you cant even make your own league there in singapore, how do you expect on making a league with the whole SEA?? get help from samsung? because i know that after a year or so, you'll be left out by Blizzard because SEA countries aren't the countries you would expect to have many players pay for a MERE GAME.
think fuckers! not every country in the SEA is developed liked singapore.
|
eh, i guess I'll be sticking with BW for a while then.
|
On June 03 2010 02:38 pheus wrote: I posted a thread explaining how the whole SE Asia thing is a cost cutting (covering) exercise, but was closed on the basis that it was obvious and common knowledge.
Anyhow, basically because Blizzard's new battle.net design is client-server rather than peer2peer their bandwidth costs will be a lot higher, and international traffic is more expensive than local. It's just plain cheaper for them to plonk Australia, New Zealand, Singapore etc on a more localised server.
Sure, WoW was client-server with servers based in the US for sg, nz and aus players, but that was supported by a 20$ a month fee.
It's all about money.
Actually, R1ch the TL.net tech wizard found out that Battlenet 2.0 is actually P2P based, well at least for SC2.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117158
again, if they can run the first battlenet world wide, offering easy access to different servers/gateways for almost 10 fuking years for free! i cannot see any arguments of how Battlenet 2.0 which is supposedly more advanced/newer cannot offer the same service and package of the original SC...
and really is this the best PR Blizzard can come up with to justify their increased retail price on SE ASIA? game longevity?? the game is the same around the globe ain't it, how the hell does this bullshit excuse justify the increased retail costs of a single region?
localised server development?? now this is like pouring acid on a already deep wound, not only the people in that regions not get compensated for not being able to play globally (maybe some localised service etc etc), they get penalised for higher pricing instead for a basic feature that has been demanded by the SC community worldwide??
where the fuck has your common sense gone Blizzard? or are you taking us gamers as a retard that will just swallow any bullshit you throw at us?
sorry for my mildly strong language, this is infuriating.
|
On June 03 2010 08:43 Shizuru~ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 02:38 pheus wrote: I posted a thread explaining how the whole SE Asia thing is a cost cutting (covering) exercise, but was closed on the basis that it was obvious and common knowledge.
Anyhow, basically because Blizzard's new battle.net design is client-server rather than peer2peer their bandwidth costs will be a lot higher, and international traffic is more expensive than local. It's just plain cheaper for them to plonk Australia, New Zealand, Singapore etc on a more localised server.
Sure, WoW was client-server with servers based in the US for sg, nz and aus players, but that was supported by a 20$ a month fee.
It's all about money. Actually, R1ch the TL.net tech wizard found out that Battlenet 2.0 is actually P2P based, well at least for SC2. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117158again, if they can run the first battlenet world wide, offering easy access to different servers/gateways for almost 10 fuking years for free! i cannot see any arguments of how Battlenet 2.0 which is supposedly more advanced/newer cannot offer the same service and package of the original SC... Oh but didn't you hear? "The technology just isn't there yet" Lol but seriously it is pretty damn stupid an I can't really see a good excuse besides them becoming greedy/power hungry.
|
There is a reason blizzard is region locking the game and it is best demonstrated through this.
If it wasnt about money, let people in SE asia import the game from the US or Europe (wherever the exchange rate is most favorable). In that case, the game would, theoretically, cost more or less the same in every region, taxes excluded, with shipping costs making up most of the differences in prices.
You can use poorly thought out and irrelevant pseudo-financial explanations to try and justify what they are doing as simply wanting to make back what they are investing in each region, but it is clear that Blizzard is price discriminating regionally to extract maximum monies and they will happily do it at the expense of the community.
That's precisely what is happening here, with the Kespa business, no lan, etc. Yes companies exist to make money, but what Activision is in the business of doing is hopping from short term project to short term project and just throwing anything that has been spent in the bin. Blizzard has, historically, sought to get repeat customers by making a quality product. I simply do not understand how this point is lost on the apologists who use the "all companies want to make profit" line.
And despite the recent trainwreck interview I have a feeling that the retail version's EULA will EXPLICITY prohibit you using a version of the game that isnt in your region. Whether they enforce that will depend on how rampant it is, if you get the entire country of Australia playing on the US server expect Activision's boot to place squarely on your teeth.
|
On June 03 2010 09:16 red_b wrote: There is a reason blizzard is region locking the game and it is best demonstrated through this.
If it wasnt about money, let people in SE asia import the game from the US or Europe (wherever the exchange rate is most favorable). In that case, the game would, theoretically, cost more or less the same in every region, taxes excluded, with shipping costs making up most of the differences in prices.
You can use poorly thought out and irrelevant pseudo-financial explanations to try and justify what they are doing as simply wanting to make back what they are investing in each region, but it is clear that Blizzard is price discriminating regionally to extract maximum monies and they will happily do it at the expense of the community.
That's precisely what is happening here, with the Kespa business, no lan, etc. Yes companies exist to make money, but what Activision is in the business of doing is hopping from short term project to short term project and just throwing anything that has been spent in the bin. Blizzard has, historically, sought to get repeat customers by making a quality product. I simply do not understand how this point is lost on the apologists who use the "all companies want to make profit" line.
And despite the recent trainwreck interview I have a feeling that the retail version's EULA will EXPLICITY prohibit you using a version of the game that isnt in your region. Whether they enforce that will depend on how rampant it is, if you get the entire country of Australia playing on the US server expect Activision's boot to place squarely on your teeth.
I have to agree with red_b here. I'm pretty sure Blizzard will make their ROI within the first year of releasing the game. And I still believe this business model is based off Activision's.
|
On June 02 2010 19:29 Aerox wrote: Ugh, obvious ass-kissing by NEWater. Poorly thought out points.
Very clearly QFT.
I was reading the OP and hoping for some actual discussion or critical thinking involved in these points. I got finished reading and check the URL. Wait, it wasn't www.Blizzard.com as I thought I would see...?
|
Is this why Bisu keeps visiting Thailand?
|
On June 03 2010 08:43 Shizuru~ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 02:38 pheus wrote: I posted a thread explaining how the whole SE Asia thing is a cost cutting (covering) exercise, but was closed on the basis that it was obvious and common knowledge.
Anyhow, basically because Blizzard's new battle.net design is client-server rather than peer2peer their bandwidth costs will be a lot higher, and international traffic is more expensive than local. It's just plain cheaper for them to plonk Australia, New Zealand, Singapore etc on a more localised server.
Sure, WoW was client-server with servers based in the US for sg, nz and aus players, but that was supported by a 20$ a month fee.
It's all about money. Actually, R1ch the TL.net tech wizard found out that Battlenet 2.0 is actually P2P based, well at least for SC2. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117158
That's weird, I still get lag when I host or play solo against a computer. I really don't see how that is peer2peer
|
On June 02 2010 23:31 SubtleArt wrote:Theres a difference between just making a product and selling it and squeezing every last drop of money you can from someone. Im not gonna pay to use a napkin at a restaurant. Oh and public health care is pretty cool
OMFG definitely you have to be kidding me, you are just so cute an innocent to be insulted.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 02 2010 20:04 Kennigit wrote: "so maybe region locking is reasonable after all" - yeah, stay in Singapore and never compete against the rest of the world...that sounds like a good plan.
I do agree with "exhaustive bureaucracy" though That exist in cuba, it sucks so hard
We cant compete with anyone outside korea in any game whatsoever, is the saddest thing ever, watching people play and not been able to compete with them, it really sucks and lowers your expectations, ive never played with anyone outside cuba, and it hurts to say, its pathetic and makes you wanna play vs pc games.
|
kona's gonna be in the pro league for this region
|
The premium is for a new server bank to play on. You can either get that one or buy korea version for less. If you get Korea version which is cheaper (69000 won) you'd have latency for 4600+km that you would otherwise not have if you paid a premium. It's a one time fee.
|
singapore/australia sales will be decent still but i cant imagine malaysians shelling out 250RM (thats ALOT in their currency) for a computer game. likewise for thailand/phillipines, how can these people with less purchasing power pay higher than US citizens - Especially new gamers who have never played starcraft before, it will just be an automatic skip
i was at the meeting too and i brought out how all these benefits they mentioned (low latency, localised live tournaments) are only going to affect a small handful of players ie the competitive/ top players, whereas they were going subject the vast majority to the price increase. yes casual players care about lag but its not that much of an issue to CASUAL players. They rather have a 2 second delay than pay 60 bucks more. I however will pay the extra, and all hardcore blizzard fans will obviously still buy starcraft 2, but they will still have that uncomfortable feeling that they are paying too much for something they shouldn't be.
And 50% of the players who buy starcraft just play the single player and are done with the game, so the number of sales is going to drastically drop as these players who dont benefit at all(latency nonissue they dont go online, no tournaments etc) are not going to pay 109$ just to play the game, so there goes a huge portion of new players. Also, 16 year olds arent going touch this at all, they will probably just buy 60 games on their iPhones, a new one every other day, instead of saving 4 months for 109$. Even when they do, they wont have friends playing it cause its too expensive, and those who do may have ordered the US version. The blizzard rep mentioned this is something they will look into.
The main justification for the high price was that it was all ultimately about the game expereince. they wanted to create a perfect gaming expereince for everyone, even the dota players who kept dying because of that 1 second delay in lag, and FOR ME the price tag is justified. im not agreeing 100% with this but i do have an open mind. i mean if i picture myself a few months down the road, where bnet2.0 is fixed, sc2 is the best game of all time and im having a blast and know i will continue to do so for a long time to come. Like how we enjoyed SC1/TFT for years, way beyond the game life of all those non blizzard games that we payed 60 bux for and stopped playing for 1 month. Thinking back to this thread, would the price be worth it? I belong to the group where the benefits increase my gaming expereince so ill say yes.
I do however, think they gotta do a massive rethinking on their prices/pitch to the casual players. If i put myself in the shoes of a 16 year old/ recreational gamer/ single player dude / person living in 3rd world country(no disrespect, just the purcashing power issue), these benefits arent as important to me and isnt justification for the high price tag so i simply wont buy the game.
Next, the main reason why the SEA is priced higher is because of blizzard set up costs, they are setting up an office, new server in the region all from scratch. I disagree with the SEA players having to subsidise the setup costs when blizzard has more than enough money through WoW etc. Also, this set up cost should be seen as an investment choice on their part that will bring in more revenue for them in the future, and at the moment the big price tag will only hurt their sales and growth of the player base. Like i dont pay more for willy wonka sweets if i know they are researching a new flavour.
Lastly something out of topic - for the proleague if i recall correctly they mentioned something along the lines of creating a specialised server with dedicated bandwitdh etc to handle players from different regions.
|
Sigh. Promoting e-sports with no cross-realm.
I just wish Blizzard would actually RESPOND. Someone ask them "how do you expect to promote e-sports with no cross-realm play". Someone needs to ask that in an interview. Please.
|
On June 02 2010 23:31 SubtleArt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 22:21 danbel1005 wrote:On June 02 2010 19:38 Perfect Balance wrote: There's one direction Blizzard is moving in - towards more money.
That's the only common denominator of all their recent decisions, and users suffer. OMG really? You sir are a genious Dude, who doesn't. Do Restaurants give food for free, Does a Hospital operate for free, don't you have to pay for clothes, or gas, Will Your Girlfriend marry you if your a Cheap-ass? Don't know what world you might be living in, one thing is for sure tho, on Mother Earth MONEY TALKS, get over it, its pretty obvious Blizzard will set a price to any of its products, complaining about it its pointless, once the product is out if you consider its worth the money you'll buy the damn thing. Buying SC2 is not an Obligation. On the other hand. a little sarcasm plz? + Show Spoiler +There's one direction Automotive is moving in - towards money. Wish I could talk to Ettore Bugatti or Jean Bugatti so they could set a lower price to its products. Theres a difference between just making a product and selling it and squeezing every last drop of money you can from someone. Im not gonna pay to use a napkin at a restaurant. Oh and public health care is pretty cool
Likewise saying Blizzard is making us 'pay for the napkins at a restaurant' is a pretty gross hyperbole. By comparison Blizzard is quite tame. Hi paying for multiplayer mode DLC for Resident Evil 5.
|
Why can't Blizzard combine the gateways, but give a heavy preferential bias towards playing someone from your local area? Like if a player can't be found in the first 3-5 seconds the server will search from other gateways for a partner. I'd think that would minimize latency for the majority of games, and if you wanted to play someone specifically from another gateway you can. This would also support tournaments and showmatches. Is there some technical detail in there that I'm missing that wouldn't make this work?
|
On June 03 2010 17:31 gdroxor wrote: Is there some technical detail in there that I'm missing that wouldn't make this work?
It technically prevents them from making $60 more per additional region you want to play on, which is a pretty hefty detail. Also, if you've listened to anything Frankie Pearce said, the technology's just not there yet!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I can only hope that cross-realm will be available within a year or so, I was a fool to pre-order the local set.
|
On June 03 2010 16:10 aLt)nirvana wrote: singapore/australia sales will be decent still but i cant imagine malaysians shelling out 250RM (thats ALOT in their currency) for a computer game. likewise for thailand/phillipines, how can these people with less purchasing power pay higher than US citizens - Especially new gamers who have never played starcraft before, it will just be an automatic skip
i was at the meeting too and i brought out how all these benefits they mentioned (low latency, localised live tournaments) are only going to affect a small handful of players ie the competitive/ top players, whereas they were going subject the vast majority to the price increase. yes casual players care about lag but its not that much of an issue to CASUAL players. They rather have a 2 second delay than pay 60 bucks more. I however will pay the extra, and all hardcore blizzard fans will obviously still buy starcraft 2, but they will still have that uncomfortable feeling that they are paying too much for something they shouldn't be.
And 50% of the players who buy starcraft just play the single player and are done with the game, so the number of sales is going to drastically drop as these players who dont benefit at all(latency nonissue they dont go online, no tournaments etc) are not going to pay 109$ just to play the game, so there goes a huge portion of new players. Also, 16 year olds arent going touch this at all, they will probably just buy 60 games on their iPhones, a new one every other day, instead of saving 4 months for 109$. Even when they do, they wont have friends playing it cause its too expensive, and those who do may have ordered the US version. The blizzard rep mentioned this is something they will look into.
The main justification for the high price was that it was all ultimately about the game expereince. they wanted to create a perfect gaming expereince for everyone, even the dota players who kept dying because of that 1 second delay in lag, and FOR ME the price tag is justified. im not agreeing 100% with this but i do have an open mind. i mean if i picture myself a few months down the road, where bnet2.0 is fixed, sc2 is the best game of all time and im having a blast and know i will continue to do so for a long time to come. Like how we enjoyed SC1/TFT for years, way beyond the game life of all those non blizzard games that we payed 60 bux for and stopped playing for 1 month. Thinking back to this thread, would the price be worth it? I belong to the group where the benefits increase my gaming expereince so ill say yes.
I do however, think they gotta do a massive rethinking on their prices/pitch to the casual players. If i put myself in the shoes of a 16 year old/ recreational gamer/ single player dude / person living in 3rd world country(no disrespect, just the purcashing power issue), these benefits arent as important to me and isnt justification for the high price tag so i simply wont buy the game.
Next, the main reason why the SEA is priced higher is because of blizzard set up costs, they are setting up an office, new server in the region all from scratch. I disagree with the SEA players having to subsidise the setup costs when blizzard has more than enough money through WoW etc. Also, this set up cost should be seen as an investment choice on their part that will bring in more revenue for them in the future, and at the moment the big price tag will only hurt their sales and growth of the player base. Like i dont pay more for willy wonka sweets if i know they are researching a new flavour.
Lastly something out of topic - for the proleague if i recall correctly they mentioned something along the lines of creating a specialised server with dedicated bandwitdh etc to handle players from different regions. Thanks for the additional information.
- More people had been turned to buying originals for the past couple of years but I can guarantee this will turn them back to piracy. I know a lot of them. They are willing to pay for originals but what's stopping them is either the price or the attraction of multiplayer mode or the game being not good overall. Not to mention the region lock further reinforces the multiplayer experience will be limited. - The PR statement also implies US will have a dumbed down experience if they claim that the extra costs are for a better experience as well as esports and tournaments and stuff. What's stopping the US from holding their tournaments? This is clearly an excuse by IAH/Blizz PR. - IAH has a history. One that already will barrier an expected number of gamers from buying(aka Failgate). Now they've added another barrier: increase in price. This will not go well. Oh, this will not go well.
I can only guessed the least negative but realistic explanation for this to happen is that IAH grabbed the distribution contract by overpromising with guarantee of high returns. Fuck you, IAH.
OFFTOPIC: As for me, + Show Spoiler + I guess I will start to hang out more on Guild Wars sites (Jeff Strain is the creator of Bnet and a playable GW2 is out by August) and play other games while I wait for IAH to crumble or a price drop to happen. Maybe, I'll import the US version later but boycott protest comes first.
|
On June 03 2010 11:14 pheus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 08:43 Shizuru~ wrote:On June 03 2010 02:38 pheus wrote: I posted a thread explaining how the whole SE Asia thing is a cost cutting (covering) exercise, but was closed on the basis that it was obvious and common knowledge.
Anyhow, basically because Blizzard's new battle.net design is client-server rather than peer2peer their bandwidth costs will be a lot higher, and international traffic is more expensive than local. It's just plain cheaper for them to plonk Australia, New Zealand, Singapore etc on a more localised server.
Sure, WoW was client-server with servers based in the US for sg, nz and aus players, but that was supported by a 20$ a month fee.
It's all about money. Actually, R1ch the TL.net tech wizard found out that Battlenet 2.0 is actually P2P based, well at least for SC2. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=117158 That's weird, I still get lag when I host or play solo against a computer. I really don't see how that is peer2peer It's player-server-player. R1CH says as much in the topic. I'm unfamiliar with the terminology but my guess is that this is the "routed peer to peer" he mentions, while BW for example would be direct peer to peer.
|
On June 02 2010 15:02 wwiv wrote: I would really like some alternative view points on this, as an Economics student, I cant help but feel that this is all a smokescreen to distract from the truth that Blizzard and the regional distributor are simply out to recoup their initial investment costs (specifically the investments in servers / offices) in the region asap rather then having a true long term framework for the development of pro-gaming in SE Asia.
I found this funny cause as an economics student myself I find it hard to believe that Blizzard considers e-sports in general to be nothing more then a promotion tool. Their primary source of revenue is after all the sale of games.
Corporations aren't evil but they work towards fulfilling certain goals usually to sustain profit and/or growth (stock companies especially).
Like I said Blizzard can be bad for e-sports not because they are an evil big company but rather because as a business they have objectives that might work against the development of e-sports.
Assuming this logic is also why I prefer KeSPA being independent from Blizzard and allowed to broadcast games without their approval (although a royalty fee would probably be just). Of course assuming KeSPA is equally profit hungry atleast their primary source of income is related to e-sports basically meaning whats good for e-sports is good for KeSPA and in extension good for the fans.
That KeSPA is seriously shady is another discussion though.
In the end e-sports is simply a niche market but Blizzard is not a company aimed at our niche market so we can't expect them to cater to us and only us which is why you really don't want them to assume total control over the e-sports aspect of their games.
|
I still think blizzard is trying yo jew us out completely. Ever since WoW was made, they are money hungry!!!
|
Singapore147 Posts
Blizzard have lost it. Charging more in a region with both lower purchasing power and rampant piracy - i'm sure someone will find a way to crack the game eventually and that will be the end of that. I doubt they're going to sell that many copies of the game, times are bad and 100$ is a lot of money you know -_-
|
On June 03 2010 17:23 Ocedic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 23:31 SubtleArt wrote:On June 02 2010 22:21 danbel1005 wrote:On June 02 2010 19:38 Perfect Balance wrote: There's one direction Blizzard is moving in - towards more money.
That's the only common denominator of all their recent decisions, and users suffer. OMG really? You sir are a genious Dude, who doesn't. Do Restaurants give food for free, Does a Hospital operate for free, don't you have to pay for clothes, or gas, Will Your Girlfriend marry you if your a Cheap-ass? Don't know what world you might be living in, one thing is for sure tho, on Mother Earth MONEY TALKS, get over it, its pretty obvious Blizzard will set a price to any of its products, complaining about it its pointless, once the product is out if you consider its worth the money you'll buy the damn thing. Buying SC2 is not an Obligation. On the other hand. a little sarcasm plz? + Show Spoiler +There's one direction Automotive is moving in - towards money. Wish I could talk to Ettore Bugatti or Jean Bugatti so they could set a lower price to its products. Theres a difference between just making a product and selling it and squeezing every last drop of money you can from someone. Im not gonna pay to use a napkin at a restaurant. Oh and public health care is pretty cool Likewise saying Blizzard is making us 'pay for the napkins at a restaurant' is a pretty gross hyperbole. By comparison Blizzard is quite tame. Hi paying for multiplayer mode DLC for Resident Evil 5.
You think charging 2 expansion packs as separate full priced games (actually more than a regular full priced new release) is tame? And no i dont give a flying shit about campaign. You cant honestly tell me a new campaign warrants charging such a ridiculous amount for an expansion.
They're smart though. Everyone who wants to stay competitive or even just keep up with the multiplayer community will HAVE to buy the 3 games
|
The quoted thread from NEWater or whatever his name is... I just have to say.... its one of the most utterly absurd things ive readen in a long time.
Buying SC2 is indeed not an obligation, like danbel1005 from Ecuador says, but paying $109 because the game lasts long, because Blozzard MAY do something for the SEA community, and paying $109 FOR BEING REGION LOCKED makes no sense at all.
NEWater is making it sound as if a region locked game is not only good, but that its a REASON to pay more for the game... what the fuck? "That's possibly the Value you might be getting out of your S$109"... seriously... what the fuck?
They could always have like a recommended server feature, like everyone has said a million times, but locking it completely so that we can play better???
I cant believe someone had the balls to go ahead and write something like that... for that i do respect you dude.
|
The fact of the matter is, Blizzard can make all the claims in the world they like. We can make all the 'chat channels!' or 'crap ladder system!!' posts we like, all these things aside - ALL of them there is only one major point here.
Server segregation internationally, FORCED server segregation. This is a distinct and direct piece of hypocrisy against making the game massive, it hinders and holds the game back in so many more ways than it helps it. How can any company in 2010 ever possibly think of locking the community down when we all have 'duh - the internet' and speak to each other, post on sites across the world, follow asian gaming, follow EU gaming, follow US gaming etc. It's silly, it's backwards, it's dumb it's almost "Microsoft-ish" - it makes no sense and while SC2 may be big for 2/3/4 or even 5 years - in the long long curve of the game in 6 years - this change is going to make the community(ies) seem 1/3 the size that they actually are - period.
It's stupid and until this is addressed I can not take anything they say seriously. It is a dumb business decision.
|
On June 04 2010 21:32 abrasion wrote: The fact of the matter is, Blizzard can make all the claims in the world they like. We can make all the 'chat channels!' or 'crap ladder system!!' posts we like, all these things aside - ALL of them there is only one major point here.
Server segregation internationally, FORCED server segregation. This is a distinct and direct piece of hypocrisy against making the game massive, it hinders and holds the game back in so many more ways than it helps it. How can any company in 2010 ever possibly think of locking the community down when we all have 'duh - the internet' and speak to each other, post on sites across the world, follow asian gaming, follow EU gaming, follow US gaming etc. It's silly, it's backwards, it's dumb it's almost "Microsoft-ish" - it makes no sense and while SC2 may be big for 2/3/4 or even 5 years - in the long long curve of the game in 6 years - this change is going to make the community(ies) seem 1/3 the size that they actually are - period.
It's stupid and until this is addressed I can not take anything they say seriously. It is a dumb business decision.
Only difference is that Microsoft still holds 90% of the consumer market a decade later. I very highly doubt that BlizziVision/ActiBlizzion will be the same, if any other company dares to release another great RTS with a system that doesn't completely suck.
I completely agree with you that this is a terrible business decision. It is great for the initial ROI, but in the end consumer loyalty will be the death of this game..
|
It's not even about loyalty - it's literally being closed minded - communities not being able to merge and combine in strength - don't they remember the destructicons? I mean cmon here Blizzard, what the fuck?
|
long time blizzard fan. and seeing that there are gonna be 2 other SC2 games, they cant very well put everything we want into the first game can they? then what will make us buy the other 2? i figure its just common sense economically.
And i honeslty have no problems blopping down the $100 for the collectors edition here in the US because i know FOR CERTAIN that i WILL GET MY MONEY'S WORTH. for fuck sake ppl you pay $60 for an 8-20 hour experience on the console <.< y would u complain about spending a bit more for 20-100+ hours of awesome?
p.s. region locking however i do share that sentiment with the lot of you. but you never know maybe they will give up region jumping option in the expansions sure would be a good incentive to buy the next game IMO :3
|
On June 02 2010 20:50 LordWeird wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 20:30 Boonbag wrote: What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ? Couldn't agree more. People have been making great and successful games for a long time and it's never had to require this much cash dumping. Maybe Blizz has let the success of their other games and the current hype of SC2 go to their heads? Well if it's actually a superior product, it should cost more money. The idea that SC2 would cost less than a random shitty game is the scarier idea.
|
On June 02 2010 15:02 wwiv wrote: I would really like some alternative view points on this, as an Economics student, I cant help but feel that this is all a smokescreen to distract from the truth that Blizzard and the regional distributor are simply out to recoup their initial investment costs (specifically the investments in servers / offices) in the region asap rather then having a true long term framework for the development of pro-gaming in SE Asia.
As an economics student, I thought you would find it completely reasonable that all Blizzard is interested in is money, and they will develop the region only if it makes them more money than they put in. Whether it works or not is another matter, but of course we should all start from the assumption that Blizzard wants to make lots of money, and it's up to us whether we want to be a part of that.
|
On June 05 2010 23:32 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 20:50 LordWeird wrote:On June 02 2010 20:30 Boonbag wrote: What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ? Couldn't agree more. People have been making great and successful games for a long time and it's never had to require this much cash dumping. Maybe Blizz has let the success of their other games and the current hype of SC2 go to their heads? Well if it's actually a superior product, it should cost more money. The idea that SC2 would cost less than a random shitty game is the scarier idea. Agreed, but a 'superior product' should really have LAN support and chat rooms and shit.
I don't object to paying a premium for a good product.
|
its a good move made by blizzard there, considering how strong DotA was in SE Asia, this is a wise investment.
but what im concern is about how much are they willing to invest into such a "wild" market, the copyright laws in SE Asia is almost none and the network condition there is just at "decent" level. Charging fee like what they did to russia and mexico is a very bad idea since by doing that, they might lose more than 70% of potential customers in this market....
i wonder how they will pull this off
|
On June 06 2010 11:26 The Storyteller wrote:
As an economics student, I thought you would find it completely reasonable that all Blizzard is interested in is money, and they will develop the region only if it makes them more money than they put in. Whether it works or not is another matter, but of course we should all start from the assumption that Blizzard wants to make lots of money, and it's up to us whether we want to be a part of that.
Actually as an economics student you realize that there has to be a balance between the marginal utility of money and the marginal disutility of no longer doing what you love.
You know with Activision that they like money so much they will royally screw customers; the little bit of guilt of they have is dwarfed by the stock holders laughing all the way to the bank every quarter.
Economics does not preclude doing things for reasons other than money; that is only the case at base levels where people are concerned solely with the aggregate or simplest cases.
|
On June 06 2010 13:34 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 11:26 The Storyteller wrote:
As an economics student, I thought you would find it completely reasonable that all Blizzard is interested in is money, and they will develop the region only if it makes them more money than they put in. Whether it works or not is another matter, but of course we should all start from the assumption that Blizzard wants to make lots of money, and it's up to us whether we want to be a part of that. Actually as an economics student you realize that there has to be a balance between the marginal utility of money and the marginal disutility of no longer doing what you love. You know with Activision that they like money so much they will royally screw customers; the little bit of guilt of they have is dwarfed by the stock holders laughing all the way to the bank every quarter. Economics does not preclude doing things for reasons other than money; that is only the case at base levels where people are concerned solely with the aggregate or simplest cases.
If that's what they're doing aren't they being very short-sighted by relying on short term (SC2) purchases? I mean in the long run they're obviously hurting their sales and popularity.
|
On June 06 2010 14:55 divinesage wrote:
If that's what they're doing aren't they being very short-sighted by relying on short term (SC2) purchases? I mean in the long run they're obviously hurting their sales and popularity.
Has their intention to do exactly that ever been in question? It's what companies over here do. We are a short sighted culture and quarterly returns are king. CEO turnover is very high; a few bad quarters (and by bad, you could have not lost anything but not gained anything either) and your head could very well be gone. There are varying degrees, but the way activision treated IW I think I know which camp they sit in.
Making maximum product is not economics, that is business. Maximum profit is NOT the same as rationality, nor is it the same as utility maximization.
Singapore is getting the short shrift.
|
Vanilla WoW + BC + WoTLK = 80 + 60 + 60 = 200 Subscription = Total two years subscription = 24 months x 25 = 600.
Wtf WoW is $25 per month in Singapore?
|
It appears Blizzard is turning away from its strategy of repeat customers to the aforementioned quarterly model. The only losers are you - the people who buy the game and believe that Blizz has a legitimate interest in fostering "eSports".
|
On June 06 2010 15:06 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2010 14:55 divinesage wrote:
If that's what they're doing aren't they being very short-sighted by relying on short term (SC2) purchases? I mean in the long run they're obviously hurting their sales and popularity. Has their intention to do exactly that ever been in question? It's what companies over here do. We are a short sighted culture and quarterly returns are king. CEO turnover is very high; a few bad quarters (and by bad, you could have not lost anything but not gained anything either) and your head could very well be gone. There are varying degrees, but the way activision treated IW I think I know which camp they sit in. Making maximum product is not economics, that is business. Maximum profit is NOT the same as rationality, nor is it the same as utility maximization. Singapore is getting the short shrift.
Well, not all companies. But lots of them do.
And we as consumers can do that too... I'm not going to buy SC2 no matter how many good games Blizzard made in the past and will make in the future, until I think I'm getting my money's worth.
I really wonder who's in charge of Battlenet. The interviews with guys there sound completely different from those with the game development guys. It sounds like two separate companies. Blizzard needs to get its company values/direction in place.
|
On June 03 2010 03:02 pheus wrote:Mike Morihame and Frank Pearce, two of Blizzard's founders, still work there. From what I could find out the majority of people that left were from the diablo team, not starcraft. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=71614there's a list of some of the Blizzard employees working on sc2 and their experience
True, but have you seen the crap that comes out of Pearce's mouth these days?
Do you really want chat rooms?
+ Show Spoiler +Fucking pathetic is what that shit is right there.
|
But let's put things into perspective here: I've been playing WoW on and off since '06, and I've bound to have spent at least...
Vanilla WoW + BC + WoTLK = 80 + 60 + 60 = 200 Subscription = Total two years subscription = 24 months x 25 = 600.
WTF does a pay-to-play MMORPG have to do with an RTS? this point is completely bullshit.
|
Moopie, it's relevant because Blizzard is making some countries have a pay-to-play system for multiplayer in SC2.
|
Hope this part of the interview clears things up for you guys.
Roland Ong, CEO, IAHGames
GAX: Why is StarCraft II so expensive?
Ong: The deal that IAHGames have signed with Blizzard Entertainment for StarCraft II is a “License and Distribution Agreement” which makes IAHGames the official licensee and distributor for StarCraft II in SEA. Blizzard will be running their own battle.net servers for the game and Blizzard are responsible for setting the price of the game worldwide, which includes the SEA region.
Why is it so expensive? When you buy StarCraft II you get free, unlimited access to Battle.Net. Remember that things in Singapore are always more expensive than in the US. In the US, it’s very cheap for Blizzard to run Battle.net as 1MB of bandwidth costs less than US$10, but here, 1MB of bandwidth can cost between S$80-100, so the price is naturally higher to reflect that. It’s a little bit more expensive, but you get very low latency and Blizzard can assure the quality of play as a result.
Rest of it if you want to read it:
+ Show Spoiler +http://gameaxis.com/the-official-word-on-the-starcraft-ii-pricing/
|
nice post by alt)nirvana
- blizzard are/have definitely set up a local branch in sg.
- I worry if IAH has any hand at all in supporting/running b2.0 se asia. QC will go down the drain
- of cos I don't know about bandwidth costs in asia vs usa, but i doubt that is the reason. because a 8x to 10x premium would need a much higher retail price or even subscription to cover. and for sure local traffic in each country is free (or can be). 1MB costs $80-100 - do you think i'm retarded?
if bandwidth really costs 8-10x more, it be financially smart to buy more in US and have every1 connect there. latency can be reduced to a bearable level.
- "Remember that things in Singapore are always more expensive than in the US." he's got the balls to write this? insulting
going by what the CEO of IAHGames has written, its seems that they think of all gamers as 10yo who play maple story
- lastly, for a RTS lover like yourself, i fear the high prices will reduce the amount of SC2 gamers and indirectly hurt your gaming experience should you choose to play in SE asia. I wonder what blizzard's estimate for SE asian sales for SC2 is. I wonder if they can even answer that question.
- I agree with alt)nirvana that it seems SE asian gamers are being made to pay for the setup costs of blizzard to se asia, the server setups and IAH cuts.
- i have a hunch the region locking is to benefit their regioin partners - i.e for se asia, IAH. no other reason why the whole of asia cant be lumped together in the same region as before. latency/lag is not a valid argument. i'm sure viet - > nz is gonna be about same as to USA.
so with IAH's extremely BM reputation. i'm hestitate. if it was some other company, i wouldnt be so negative.
I for 1 will wait till news of how lag is to US/KR server before deciding which region to purchase.
|
On June 08 2010 17:58 Aldair wrote: Moopie, it's relevant because Blizzard is making some countries have a pay-to-play system for multiplayer in SC2. Yes, and that price model is outrageous imo, I've already said as much before. However, saying "hey, this rts is $x, and you can play it for years, where as paying for a pay-to-play mmo will cost you a lot more in the long run" is a very poor argument. Nobody even knows that this business model that blizzard is trying here will be successful, and in my opinion it just sets a very poor precedent, much like with Hellgate: London where they tried to have it (an ARPG) be pay-to-play. Flaghship went under in less than a year. Now clearly sc2 will be successful (though maybe not as much as bw), and even if it isn't (in theory) blizzard isn't going anywhere, but it's still not a good move in my opinion.
Anyway back to my point above, sc2 is not an mmo, and comparing it to one to try to make its price seem reasonable is meaningless.
|
US servers lag all the time
|
On June 08 2010 17:58 Aldair wrote: Moopie, it's relevant because Blizzard is making some countries have a pay-to-play system for multiplayer in SC2.
its an alternative option, not a requirement
|
On June 05 2010 23:32 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 20:50 LordWeird wrote:On June 02 2010 20:30 Boonbag wrote: What the hell do they think their new game is ? Some kind of masterpiece of Da vinci ? The longeviety argument... so we have to pay you more so that you can keep making good games ? Wait isn't that your job on the first place ? Couldn't agree more. People have been making great and successful games for a long time and it's never had to require this much cash dumping. Maybe Blizz has let the success of their other games and the current hype of SC2 go to their heads? Well if it's actually a superior product, it should cost more money. The idea that SC2 would cost less than a random shitty game is the scarier idea.
Yea but stretching their ideas out to a game and 2 fucking expansions and then charging that much for the expansion packs that you'll pretty much HAVE to buy in order to keep up with the community is a bit ridiculous too.
|
Man you guys act like some cheap hobby is equivalent to someone that scuba dives all over the world or someone that owns several airplanes they fly regularly cross country with their family for vacations etc. Yeah you just spent the same amount of money on a sequel with 2 expansions as you did taking your date to 1 professional baseball game including drinks, food and parking. Maybe you missed out on a couple bad movies at theaters in return. Gaming is a cheap hobby and it's not as expensive as you try to make it out to be.
|
|
|
|