We recognize that you might have found your way here after hearing the news that StarCraft II is going free-to-play very soon—on November 14, to be exact. Curious what that actually means? We know “free-to-play” can mean a lot of things for different games, but we’re here to assure you that when we say that we’re making StarCraft II free-to-play, we really mean it.
Starting November 14, you’ll have free access to the original Wings of Liberty single-player campaign and every Co-op Commander, and will be able to unlock access to StarCraft II’s competitive multiplayer content for free. Here is a specific rundown of everything that will be available to you for free:
The original Wings of Liberty campaign. Experience the original epic campaign that kicked off the StarCraft II saga! If you picked up Wings of Liberty previously but haven’t come back to StarCraft II in a while, we’ve got good news for you too—if you already own Wings of Liberty, you’ll receive the second installment in StarCraft II’s campaign, the zerg-focused Heart of the Swarm, for free. Make sure to log in between November 8 and December 8 to claim it.
You will be able to access the ranked multiplayer ladder to compete with other players to become the best of the best, complete with all of the multiplayer units from Wings of Liberty, Heart of the Swarm, and Legacy of the Void. All you have to do to unlock it permanently is earn 10 First Wins of the Day in Unranked or Versus A.I. play—our way to preserve the quality and integrity of the ranked experience.
Current and upcoming Co-op Commanders are available to play for free up to level five, and the level restriction for weekly mutations has been removed. You’ll be able to tackle these extra challenging missions with your friends right away. The Co-op Commanders Raynor, Kerrigan, and Artanis will remain completely free, meaning that you can keep leveling them to your heart’s content.
In other words, you can now play all of StarCraft II’s multiplayer, every Co-op Commander, and the entire first campaign in the single-player story, for free.
If you play through Wings of Liberty and want to see how the rest of the epic single-player saga unfolds, all the other single-player campaigns—Heart of the Swarm, Legacy of the Void, and Nova Covert Ops will be available to purchase individually for $14.99 or as a bundle for $39.99. We will also continue to offer premium upgrades like announcer packs, special skins, and new Co-op Commanders to enhance your StarCraft II experience in a number of different ways. As with the existing line-up of Co-op Commanders, however, you will be able to play upcoming new Co-op Commanders who are released for free until they reach level 5. You can also purchase any of the campaigns or a seasonal War Chest to gain immediate access to ranked play if you desire.
For those of you who have already purchased any of the three campaigns as of October 31, we’ll soon be sending you a small thank-you in the form of an exclusive Ghost skin as well as three new portraits.
Welcome to the StarCraft community, and we hope you enjoy diving into the game anew—or for the first time—with all these exciting new changes!
On November 04 2017 03:38 The_Red_Viper wrote: Hopefully this will have a real positive impact, i kinda doubt it though. We'll see, it certainly is positive in general.
this is great news. it breathes some life into the scene hopefully this ontop of things like the warchest will keep the game alive and vibrant for years to come.
On November 04 2017 04:00 claybones wrote: All of the co-op commanders as in the ones you get with LotV or as in ALL of them?
Yes all of them and all that are still to be released in the future too, but only until level 5. If you want to get them to 15, you still have to buy them.
Its a cool move from Blizzard. But imho its way too late and i doubt that brings a great amount of new players :/
And about this : "For those of you who have already purchased any of the three campaigns as of October 31, we’ll soon be sending you a small thank-you in the form of an exclusive Ghost skin as well as three new portraits." Is it a joke ? One single skin (for only one race) and three portraits ??!! Guys, i paid 120 euros, your "thank you" is a little bit insulting :/
Sounds great! Might even get some of my friends to play the game with me now, although I'll keep my hopes low.
Only thing I'm feeling a bit sore about is that I'm getting a new Ghost (aren't there like 4 already?) skin although I never play Terran... Would at least have expected a skin for every race.
On November 04 2017 04:00 claybones wrote: All of the co-op commanders as in the ones you get with LotV or as in ALL of them?
Yes all of them and all that are still to be released in the future too, but only until level 5. If you want to get them to 15, you still have to buy them.
So, 2010/2011 was my final year of high school. I had played BW competitively since 2007 (when SC2 was announced), and eventually hit national #1 in BW - but it was absolutely wrecking my school, I wouldn't have graduated if I'd've followed-through with my plan of BW→SC2 I had SC2 Beta access, but my computer wasn't able to run it, so I held-off playing ENTIRELY until after I finished high school. By then, I wasn't so keen anymore. So I never ended up finishing the WoL campaign, and never bought HotS or LotV. So, I'm glad to get HotS for free after 6yr :D
Do you know in the trailer, there is a cutscene of marines in the foreground with the nuke going off in the background...how come this is not in the WOL cinematics?
If this would have happened somewhere in the middle of HOTS maybe... Now? I'd be very surprised to see any kind of large number of players getting into SC2. Seems to be a bit more of preaching to the already devoted if you ask me.
On November 04 2017 04:32 bITt.mAN wrote: So, 2010/2011 was my final year of high school. I had played BW competitively since 2007 (when SC2 was announced), and eventually hit national #1 in BW - but it was absolutely wrecking my school, I wouldn't have graduated if I'd've followed-through with my plan of BW→SC2 I had SC2 Beta access, but my computer wasn't able to run it, so I held-off playing ENTIRELY until after I finished high school. By then, I wasn't so keen anymore. So I never ended up finishing the WoL campaign, and never bought HotS or LotV. So, I'm glad to get HotS for free after 6yr :D
I also get HotS for free now, after 6 years S:
Looking forward to trying it out. I see this decision as only a good thing. Sure, you can look at it as if only it was done sooner, but taking the current state we're in as a given, it's a good decision. Hopefully it'll breathe some more life into the game, SC2 and BW are both holding their own quite well given their age.
Won't really matter, but it was kinda free for Blizzard to do this (barely any more upfront sales) and it gives them as Starcraft story to tell at blizzcon.
Personally I've never understood why people wouldn't just buy the game if they wanted to play, it's hardly that expensive. Anyway, I guess it's good news if blizzard are happy to monietize this way
Haha, I bought up to HotS and it was LotV that I skipped. Oh well, it's not like I was going to play that much anyway. I might breeze through LotV's campaign if it was free but not really interested otherwise.
Hopefully even SOTIS can be revived. Arguably SOTIS was much better fan made moba than Blizzard's made HotS. In fact, most of my in game friends migrated to LOL after playing Sotis.
On November 04 2017 05:03 Garuga wrote: Doesn't this create an incentive for Blizzard to NOT spend more time on Starcraft? Since they will earn essentially no money from it?
They expect to get money through skins and chests, which is way better way to profit than trying to sell old game.
I think if they just leave it like this starcraft 2 is F2P go then its not gonna change much, they really need to promote it and reach out to new players otherwise I don't see it bringing that many more people.
On November 04 2017 05:18 Zaros wrote: I think if they just leave it like this starcraft 2 is F2P go then its not gonna change much, they really need to promote it and reach out to new players otherwise I don't see it bringing that many more people.
Agreed, the partial F2P we had before didn't really bring in to many new players and reddit was constantly filled with people asking what to buy to try the game. And they had no idea a good portion was already free.
On November 04 2017 06:24 ryuhayabusa69xtc wrote: so... why the hell is lotv excluded? is there even 1 person who will pay for lotv campaign??
I mean... obviously yes.
Well, let's put it like this: is there 1 person who would buy lotv campaign that hasn't already?
Yeah, I didn't even know about blizzcon, logged in to my bnet account to buy LotV only to find out it's going F2P. Bought it anyway, because I wanted to play the campaign.
On November 04 2017 06:24 ryuhayabusa69xtc wrote: so... why the hell is lotv excluded? is there even 1 person who will pay for lotv campaign??
I mean... obviously yes.
Well, let's put it like this: is there 1 person who would buy lotv campaign that hasn't already?
Yeah, I didn't even know about blizzcon, logged in to my bnet account to buy LotV only to find out it's going F2P. Bought it anyway, because I wanted to play the campaign.
Late but necessary rebranding to sort out the expansion mess. Should make marketing much easier and stop all the confusion from new players with the game versions. Maybe won't have a huge impact on saturated western market, but I think this potentially can boost starcraft's popularity in China by a good margin, assuming Netease does its marketing right. Chinese starcraft play base already benefit a lot from co-op mode, drawing in a lot of young audience. Not really much other good sci-fi themed games competing with starcraft for this share of market.
On November 04 2017 08:07 paxconsciente wrote: this is years late and litterally won't change anything i'll take it though, good news, more deathballs are good deathballs.
Post exact player activity numbers and what they are gonna look like when its free to play
Bringing more people to the Arcade, campaign, co-op is awesome, but I've always been in favor of Blizzard's decisions to make games like SC2 and Overwatch have an upfront cost to deter smurfing. I'm cautious about saying it will be good for ladder but, still, it's interesting and could turn out great.
On November 04 2017 05:03 Garuga wrote: Doesn't this create an incentive for Blizzard to NOT spend more time on Starcraft? Since they will earn essentially no money from it?
They are switching to a Freemium revenue strategy, and basically risking a little bit to make more $ off the franchise from skins, voices, commander content and other unlockables.
If it turns out to be a revenue generator, I'm sure they will spend more time on the game.
Like having gameplay-disrupting skins with no option to turn them off, this is another example of Blizzard implementing a good idea that I've suggested, but done badly.
In order to have F2P while reducing smurfing, there needs to be some kind of barrier to 1v1 ranked. Yet 10 first wins of the day is extremely weak for 1v1, while also being too stringent for team games, where there doesn't need to be a barrier to entry.
There are also other changes that should made before the game goes F2P, such as cleaning up the WoL campaign so that interface, skins, master archives is somewhat consistent with the later campaigns, and a way to deal with inactive accounts clogging up the ladder, like a leaderboards for active players only.
I have not played WoL in over a year, was getting kind of boring. Same maps all the time and I was able to get top 8 diamond with both toss and zerg easillt (especially with zerg).
Ill probably give lotv a try (and maybe even hots so I can test out playing toss with a legit defenses ability on the MC).
Kind of sucks I won't be able to play any new campaigns, but its an understandable choice.
On November 04 2017 04:44 Edpayasugo wrote: Personally I've never understood why people wouldn't just buy the game if they wanted to play, it's hardly that expensive. Anyway, I guess it's good news if blizzard are happy to monietize this way
No LAN, so it was a boycott. WoL was only gifted to me.
On November 04 2017 13:53 Hotshot wrote: I have not played WoL in over a year, was getting kind of boring. Same maps all the time and I was able to get top 8 diamond with both toss and zerg easillt (especially with zerg).
Ill probably give lotv a try (and maybe even hots so I can test out playing toss with a legit defenses ability on the MC).
Kind of sucks I won't be able to play any new campaigns, but its an understandable choice.
You'll get the HotS campaign for free if you just own WoL, so that's a bonus.
On November 04 2017 09:11 ReachTheSky wrote: Free to play? What a huge slap in the face to loyal paying customers.
You got the campaigns and you got to play the multiplayer for 7 years. Don't be a crybaby
I didn't buy the game for the singleplayer garbage campaigns. Do you honestly think shaming someone because they are upset is the right way to go about this? I had to pay to play this game and now they are just giving it away. Definitely a slap in the face to loyal customers. Btw, Wtf is wrong with you?
On November 04 2017 09:11 ReachTheSky wrote: Free to play? What a huge slap in the face to loyal paying customers.
You got the campaigns and you got to play the multiplayer for 7 years. Don't be a crybaby
I didn't buy the game for the singleplayer garbage campaigns. Do you honestly think shaming someone because they are upset is the right way to go about this? I had to pay to play this game and now they are just giving it away. Definitely a slap in the face to loyal customers. Btw, Wtf is wrong with you?
Nope, this is awesome. It will help breath life into the scene.
Plus, years of multiplayer for 140 Euro is amazing value.
On November 04 2017 09:11 ReachTheSky wrote: Free to play? What a huge slap in the face to loyal paying customers.
You got the campaigns and you got to play the multiplayer for 7 years. Don't be a crybaby
I didn't buy the game for the singleplayer garbage campaigns. Do you honestly think shaming someone because they are upset is the right way to go about this? I had to pay to play this game and now they are just giving it away. Definitely a slap in the face to loyal customers. Btw, Wtf is wrong with you?
Nope, this is awesome. It will help breath life into the scene.
Plus, years of multiplayer for 140 Euro is amazing value.
On November 04 2017 15:46 ReachTheSky wrote: I can't support a company that charges only a portion of their customer base while giving away freebies to the majority. Seems very wrong to do.
If you can't support companies that lower the prices of their games over time and eventually make some of the content free, there's a whole lot of companies you probably shouldn't buy games from.
Lol all the paid people complaining about this after playing this awesome game for years.
How about game publishers raise, instead of lowering the price of their games over time, so we could now buy LotV at $100 and WOL at $200? Does that make you happy?
On November 04 2017 09:11 ReachTheSky wrote: Free to play? What a huge slap in the face to loyal paying customers.
You got the campaigns and you got to play the multiplayer for 7 years. Don't be a crybaby
I didn't buy the game for the singleplayer garbage campaigns. Do you honestly think shaming someone because they are upset is the right way to go about this? I had to pay to play this game and now they are just giving it away. Definitely a slap in the face to loyal customers. Btw, Wtf is wrong with you?
Nope, this is awesome. It will help breath life into the scene.
Plus, years of multiplayer for 140 Euro is amazing value.
On November 04 2017 09:11 ReachTheSky wrote: Free to play? What a huge slap in the face to loyal paying customers.
You got the campaigns and you got to play the multiplayer for 7 years. Don't be a crybaby
I didn't buy the game for the singleplayer garbage campaigns. Do you honestly think shaming someone because they are upset is the right way to go about this? I had to pay to play this game and now they are just giving it away. Definitely a slap in the face to loyal customers. Btw, Wtf is wrong with you?
Nope, this is awesome. It will help breath life into the scene.
Plus, years of multiplayer for 140 Euro is amazing value.
On November 04 2017 09:11 ReachTheSky wrote: Free to play? What a huge slap in the face to loyal paying customers.
You got the campaigns and you got to play the multiplayer for 7 years. Don't be a crybaby
I didn't buy the game for the singleplayer garbage campaigns. Do you honestly think shaming someone because they are upset is the right way to go about this? I had to pay to play this game and now they are just giving it away. Definitely a slap in the face to loyal customers. Btw, Wtf is wrong with you?
Nope, this is awesome. It will help breath life into the scene.
Plus, years of multiplayer for 140 Euro is amazing value.
I can't support a company that charges only a portion of their customer base while giving away freebies to the majority. Seems very wrong to do.
You should probably uninstall Steam then because Valve pulled the same stunt on Team Fortress 2, and it only took them 4 years as opposed to 7.
Thinking that evolving as an individual/group/business/company is a slap in the face to anyone is a giant slap in the face to science and intelligence in general, no?
To people complaining about having payed consider this: It's been seven years in total and 2 years of legacy and ftp players don't get the campaings which are great really. I only got legacy for the campaing and general sc2 support reasons since I no longer had time to ladder. I know there are many people like me.
I just got amnesia: dark decent (which came out approximately back when sc2 did) from the steam halloween sale and it cost 1,50 €.. Or consider fallout new vegas a couple of years ago with every dlc for like 5 €. With 100 h played that makes 0,05 € an hour. Now that's value. Not exactly "fair" to people who dropped 80 bucks to get those but rather just normal market economy.
People who still ladder shoud be happy about this since now there is at least a fair shot for a few more years before the inevitable end.
On November 04 2017 04:15 jahnesta wrote: Its a cool move from Blizzard. But imho its way too late and i doubt that brings a great amount of new players :/
And about this : "For those of you who have already purchased any of the three campaigns as of October 31, we’ll soon be sending you a small thank-you in the form of an exclusive Ghost skin as well as three new portraits." Is it a joke ? One single skin (for only one race) and three portraits ??!! Guys, i paid 120 euros, your "thank you" is a little bit insulting :/
Yeah, I thought so too. I mean, I like they're going free to play, especially with multiplayer and of course you want to hook people with the first campaign and the lvl5 commanders. So strategically it seems sound to me, wether it's"too late" or not.
But to add to your second point: Yes, I think this is a real insult. I bought all campaigns except nova c/o and am also active in the multiplayer. I guess it's occasional players like me that keep/kept the game going aside the small pro scene.
I would really expect more than, as you said, a race-specific skin and some portraits. Especially those are laughable. I mean, maybe one of the new ones is cool and I'll use it but it does not really matter since there are already so many to choose from.
In my opinion the fair move would really be to offer owner's of all the big expansions at least a free coop commander to choose - something tangible, playable. I would like the gesture (and at least in my case Blizz wouldn't lose income since I'm mainly a ranked player and won't buy commanders anyway).
On November 04 2017 04:15 jahnesta wrote: Its a cool move from Blizzard. But imho its way too late and i doubt that brings a great amount of new players :/
And about this : "For those of you who have already purchased any of the three campaigns as of October 31, we’ll soon be sending you a small thank-you in the form of an exclusive Ghost skin as well as three new portraits." Is it a joke ? One single skin (for only one race) and three portraits ??!! Guys, i paid 120 euros, your "thank you" is a little bit insulting :/
Yeah, I thought so too. I mean, I like they're going free to play, especially with multiplayer and of course you want to hook people with the first campaign and the lvl5 commanders. So strategically it seems sound to me, wether it's"too late" or not.
But to add to your second point: Yes, I think this is a real insult. I bought all campaigns except nova c/o and am also active in the multiplayer. I guess it's occasional players like me that keep/kept the game going aside the small pro scene.
I would really expect more than, as you said, a race-specific skin and some portraits. Especially those are laughable. I mean, maybe one of the new ones is cool and I'll use it but it does not really matter since there are already so many to choose from.
In my opinion the fair move would really be to offer owner's of all the big expansions at least a free coop commander to choose - something tangible, playable. I would like the gesture (and at least in my case Blizz wouldn't lose income since I'm mainly a ranked player and won't buy commanders anyway).
So you want Blizzard to give you something that you don't even care about. The logic is solid.
People that are upset about game being free from now on, when they spent money on it , should ask themselves - "Did something change for me ?". I did that and the answer is no, so I don't care. Other than that you are just watching in other people's bowl and are uppset/jelous that they are getting something nice... Which is a low passion.
being upset about the game going free after years because you paid makes literally zero sense and shows zero understanding of the monetary value of a product in relation to time. the value of owning and playing SC2 decreases over time as hype and interest decrease and the technology used to make the game becomes less current. i'm actually shocked people need this explained to them
if you pay $400 (or whatever) to have a PS4 on release day do you get upset when someone buys it for $200 two years later?
On November 05 2017 01:14 brickrd wrote: being upset about the game going free after years because you paid makes literally zero sense and shows zero understanding of the monetary value of a product in relation to time. the value of owning and playing SC2 decreases over time as hype and interest decrease and the technology used to make the game becomes less current. i'm actually shocked people need this explained to them
if you pay $400 (or whatever) to have a PS4 on release day do you get upset when someone buys it for $200 two years later?
400$ to 200$ is half off, 174$ (49.99 + tax) to 0$ is why those people are upset, me being one of them. I'm not going to curse or moan about it because I understand the game is in dire straits and all I want is SC2 to stay alive, but it does irk me a bit that after shifting out a ton of cash for these games, a few years later they become FREE.
On November 05 2017 01:14 brickrd wrote: being upset about the game going free after years because you paid makes literally zero sense and shows zero understanding of the monetary value of a product in relation to time. the value of owning and playing SC2 decreases over time as hype and interest decrease and the technology used to make the game becomes less current. i'm actually shocked people need this explained to them
if you pay $400 (or whatever) to have a PS4 on release day do you get upset when someone buys it for $200 two years later?
400$ to 200$ is half off, 174$ (49.99 + tax) to 0$ is why those people are upset, me being one of them. I'm not going to curse or moan about it because I understand the game is in dire straits and all I want is SC2 to stay alive, but it does irk me a bit that after shifting out a ton of cash for these games, a few years later they become FREE.
Talk about buyers remorse lol
money has abstract value, dude. $200 or $0 or $50 - the value of owning something decreases over time. the percentages and ratios are irrelevant. you're just emotionally bothered at the idea of someone else getting something you have for free.
it doesn't make sense because they're not getting what you had. you had the game when it was new. they have it now. different valuation.
I do and will not understand how people are mad about this because they put money into the game and now it's free, lol.
The roughly 150$ I spent for all the three expansions combined where shaping my last 7 years of gaming.
Why do people always focus on what they don't have rather than being glad of what they have.
I don't even care for smurf accounts. If top GM players are looking to have all 200 GM spots covered by their accounts, go ahead. Ladder-based tournament invites were a problem earlier already, if these invites would just stop, nobody would be really hurt about anything. I don't care about my rank, I care about having fun and a (possibly) bigger playerbase will certainly not hurt in this regard.
If anyone is like me - who bought the game, forgot the password to the e-mail I used to register, and got locked out without recourse excepting selling my ID or repurchase - this feels like getting back what's yours.
I've played the (downgraded) freeware so long after losing my paid account that ladder nostalgia will probably make me happier to play ladder in the new (more ftp) release than those who do it regularly anyways!
On November 05 2017 02:10 watchlulu wrote: I do and will not understand how people are mad about this because they put money into the game and now it's free, lol.
The roughly 150$ I spent for all the three expansions combined where shaping my last 7 years of gaming.
Why do people always focus on what they don't have rather than being glad of what they have.
I don't even care for smurf accounts. If top GM players are looking to have all 200 GM spots covered by their accounts, go ahead. Ladder-based tournament invites were a problem earlier already, if these invites would just stop, nobody would be really hurt about anything. I don't care about my rank, I care about having fun and a (possibly) bigger playerbase will certainly not hurt in this regard.
They don't care about what they get. What they get never changed. What they care about is what the others get and are unhappy, because the others are getting something. Which is just horrible behavior... I have no other word for that.
On November 04 2017 04:15 jahnesta wrote: Its a cool move from Blizzard. But imho its way too late and i doubt that brings a great amount of new players :/
And about this : "For those of you who have already purchased any of the three campaigns as of October 31, we’ll soon be sending you a small thank-you in the form of an exclusive Ghost skin as well as three new portraits." Is it a joke ? One single skin (for only one race) and three portraits ??!! Guys, i paid 120 euros, your "thank you" is a little bit insulting :/
Yeah, I thought so too. I mean, I like they're going free to play, especially with multiplayer and of course you want to hook people with the first campaign and the lvl5 commanders. So strategically it seems sound to me, wether it's"too late" or not.
But to add to your second point: Yes, I think this is a real insult. I bought all campaigns except nova c/o and am also active in the multiplayer. I guess it's occasional players like me that keep/kept the game going aside the small pro scene.
I would really expect more than, as you said, a race-specific skin and some portraits. Especially those are laughable. I mean, maybe one of the new ones is cool and I'll use it but it does not really matter since there are already so many to choose from.
In my opinion the fair move would really be to offer owner's of all the big expansions at least a free coop commander to choose - something tangible, playable. I would like the gesture (and at least in my case Blizz wouldn't lose income since I'm mainly a ranked player and won't buy commanders anyway).
So you want Blizzard to give you something that you don't even care about. The logic is solid.
People that are upset about game being free from now on, when they spent money on it , should ask themselves - "Did something change for me ?". I did that and the answer is no, so I don't care. Other than that you are just watching in other people's bowl and are uppset/jelous that they are getting something nice... Which is a low passion.
Yeah, I'm actually happy about the game going free. I got good value for my money, really no question about it. I was trying to make clear that I don't think giving out a little more to the "classic" player would harm revenue potential that much, though it may harm Blizz to make an uncertain amount of people unhappy. Wether you think it is justified to feel that way about the move to free to play is not really relevant at that point.
On that matter: As said I think buyers got fair value and I also do not think it is jealousy that makes some people wish for more appreciation from Blizzard. It is in my opinion rather the feeling of being a loyal supporter of the game for a long time and that ego getting scratched seeing that Blizzard (understandably) wpuld like to have other people than you in the game, too, even if they are only playing it cause it's free.
I mean, myself included others arguing on wether buyers get enough recognition are very much able to see the benefits of the move for the game itself (anf them as players) and are also mentioning it. Thus there is really no reason, I think, to label these folks plainly as egoistic, narrow-minded or something.
One should be able to discuss every aspect of Blizzards move to f2p in this community. And if one does so in a civil way, one should expect to receive reactions in an equally civil manner.
Edit: Being mainly a ranked player does not preclude enjoyment of perks recieved in other areas of the game
I'll say it again, people who bought previous iterations of the game should be given an option to opt out of skins altogether if they want to, because skins at this point (and considering this silly activision matchmaking algorithm patent) are just ads and I paid premium, so to say.
Its probably a good thing for Starcraft right now.
But...
its happening yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaars too late. Just sad.
Btw:
To all the people complaning that they spend money on the game:
We all had the chance to experience the game, the tournaments at a time that will never come back. With players that are not with us playing anymore, meta-games that will never comeback and just seeing the evolvement of the game and starcraft in general. At the same time you had the chance to play the games for 7 years, which the other people had not. Think about the time and fun you got over the last couple of years.
On November 05 2017 03:56 Pr0wler wrote: So you are upset, because you think that you are special and blizzard didn't scratch your ego hard enough. Ok, I think that I have nothing to add.
I am not upset. I tried to provide some insight into why you might argue about the bonus Blizz gives to buyers. If you feel in some way uncomfortable about the issue, why not discuss it? Or rather leave people to dicuss it if they want to, instead of getting personal.
Feeling in a certain way about this news is nothing you want to, its just there. If you don't agree with what people write out of this feeling, you can argue against it or just state that you are happy with how things are going. I'm sry, but I really don't get why you could get mad about and impolite towards people discussing the loyalty rewards (as long as they are not rambling incoherently etc. etc.).
I think sometimes the issue really is that it is just not possible to convey in such posts if you are on fire about an issue or mostly just up for spending some time with discussion. Will Blizz change rewards because some say they could reasonably do more? Unlikely. Will that matter to me? Very little. Would I like to talk about the topic because it is an interesting question? Yes, obviously.
On November 05 2017 04:47 Psychobabas wrote: Well brood war didnt really explode around the world until 2003 and onwards even if it came out 5 years before, so thats what i hope for SC2.
BW also didn't have a million other esport titles to compete with.
I'm someone who cares only about the multiplayer in this game. I've always thought that they should've made that component free to play (to bolster the esports scene) while selling the single-player stuff (which casuals are more likely to care about) at a lower price. I think having to pay full price for three games just to keep up with multiplayer is what turned a lot of people (including myself) away from SCII. Look at the other top esports: League is free, Dota is free, CS:GO is a one-time purchase (cheaper than even the HotS expansion), OW is a one-time purchase.
I bought WoL for full price when it came out but didn't buy HotS or LotV because I didn't feel like paying for so much single-player stuff I was literally never going to touch.
On November 05 2017 04:47 Psychobabas wrote: Well brood war didnt really explode around the world until 2003 and onwards even if it came out 5 years before, so thats what i hope for SC2.
BW also didn't have a million other esport titles to compete with.
I'm someone who cares only about the multiplayer in this game. I've always thought that they should've made that component free to play (to bolster the esports scene) while selling the single-player stuff (which casuals are more likely to care about) at a lower price. I think having to pay full price for three games just to keep up with multiplayer is what turned a lot of people (including myself) away from SCII. Look at the other top esports: League is free, Dota is free, CS:GO is a one-time purchase (cheaper than even the HotS expansion), OW is a one-time purchase.
I bought WoL for full price when it came out but didn't buy HotS or LotV because I didn't feel like paying for so much single-player stuff I was literally never going to touch.
If you skimped on all that fun for 40$ every 2 years the joke is on you bud. I dont regret it one bit, and I never touched the single player of both expansions.
I agree they are late on making multiplayer free though.
On November 05 2017 02:10 watchlulu wrote: I do and will not understand how people are mad about this because they put money into the game and now it's free, lol.
The roughly 150$ I spent for all the three expansions combined where shaping my last 7 years of gaming.
Why do people always focus on what they don't have rather than being glad of what they have.
I don't even care for smurf accounts. If top GM players are looking to have all 200 GM spots covered by their accounts, go ahead. Ladder-based tournament invites were a problem earlier already, if these invites would just stop, nobody would be really hurt about anything. I don't care about my rank, I care about having fun and a (possibly) bigger playerbase will certainly not hurt in this regard.
They don't care about what they get. What they get never changed. What they care about is what the others get and are unhappy, because the others are getting something. Which is just horrible behavior... I have no other word for that.
This is a cousin of the sunk cost fallacy. It's part of human nature for whatever reason.
What others get and we will continue to have access to: an incredibly difficult game to play that only costs a PC to play it on as well as a great deal of time and patience.
What we (who paid for it, bought all the xpacs, etc.) got until now that we will continue to have forever: an incredible, priceless amount of game knowledge and experience and entertainment spanning seven years.
Think about that for a minute.
On November 05 2017 07:24 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: sorry if off topic, but did they announce any other balance changes or changes to ladder?
Everything changing this month leading into next year in addition to SC2 going free to play is in their Future of StarCraft II article and the Major Design Changes post. Doesn't look like anything new for the multiplayer changes since the last update around a month ago, nor are there any other announced changes to ladder or MMR. (I doubt there will be, but who knows. Maybe Copper League will return. ).
On November 04 2017 03:33 Charoisaur wrote: RIP LoL and Dota
This makes me laugh. Since when do you think ftp means people who are immerse in other genres will either come back to SC2 for content they already have done or play something they weren't really heavily invested in the first place.
Good changes, but I dunno to what extent it will influence player base. I am really surprised to read posts like "man I paid for this game and now its free", "man this game is too expensive" Like really? You spend hundreds if not thousands of hours in the game and yet you think 40$ is too much? Lmao.
On November 04 2017 03:33 Charoisaur wrote: RIP LoL and Dota
This makes me laugh. Since when do you think ftp means people who are immerse in other genres will either come back to SC2 for content they already have done or play something they weren't really heavily invested in the first place.
I think it was a pretty good sarcasm, no one from dota or lol is coming to SC2.
I agree that it should have been F2P earlier, if SC2 had any hope of keeping up with LoL and Dota2. It was definitely no where near the only reason, but it was a contributing factor.
Having to pay for 3 games when youre not thaaaaat keen on sc2 definitely hurts when there are other super fun free or one time purchase games with booming scenes. I know plenty of people who either did not pick up HoTs or Lotv because they couldnt be assed paying another $40 for a game they were slightly disillusioned with.
My point is, from a 'in which reality is sc2 still the worlds biggest esport' point of view, I think it almost has had to be free to play much earlier.
That;s all behind us now, and I'm very glad that the blizzard team have made this decision. Kudos to them for having the balls to do it.
I'm so upset that I bought 'Heat' with Al Pacino and Robert Deniro when it went to DVD, but now it's in the cheapo bin. I paid $20 for it, and I go to Wal-Mart to find it at $5!!!
Get over it. That's the way all entertainment works. If you buy a game/movie/album within the first year, expect to pay full price. Want it cheaper? Wait a few years and it will eventually drop.
On November 04 2017 03:33 Charoisaur wrote: RIP LoL and Dota
This makes me laugh. Since when do you think ftp means people who are immerse in other genres will either come back to SC2 for content they already have done or play something they weren't really heavily invested in the first place.
I think it was a pretty good sarcasm, no one from dota or lol is coming to SC2.
Dota and LoL player here. Pretty sure ill play some rankeds for first time since WoL.
But only a few. I dont think there is room for strategy in SC2, its just mechanics.
On November 04 2017 03:33 Charoisaur wrote: RIP LoL and Dota
This makes me laugh. Since when do you think ftp means people who are immerse in other genres will either come back to SC2 for content they already have done or play something they weren't really heavily invested in the first place.
I think it was a pretty good sarcasm, no one from dota or lol is coming to SC2.
Dota and LoL player here. Pretty sure ill play some rankeds for first time since WoL.
But only a few. I dont think there is room for strategy in SC2, its just mechanics.
On November 05 2017 17:43 FvRGg wrote: That;s all behind us now, and I'm very glad that the blizzard team have made this decision. Kudos to them for having the balls to do it.
What's that got to do with balls?! They tried other ways of squeezing out some more revenue, saw that it didn't net them enough and ultimately chose the F2P model. Sorry to say, but as logical and 'good' that decision may be, it wasn't a bold one, they waited 7 years...
I had my fun with SC2, got plenty of value out of it, probably the best game purchase I ever did, but Blizzard is just deliberately trying to fetch some additional buck and silence their critics regarding the pay2play+microtransaction model.
On November 04 2017 03:33 Charoisaur wrote: RIP LoL and Dota
This makes me laugh. Since when do you think ftp means people who are immerse in other genres will either come back to SC2 for content they already have done or play something they weren't really heavily invested in the first place.
I think it was a pretty good sarcasm, no one from dota or lol is coming to SC2.
Dota and LoL player here. Pretty sure ill play some rankeds for first time since WoL.
But only a few. I dont think there is room for strategy in SC2, its just mechanics.
Where's the strategy in Lol? I agree that dota has more strategic depth than sc2, but Lol..please
On November 04 2017 03:33 Charoisaur wrote: RIP LoL and Dota
This makes me laugh. Since when do you think ftp means people who are immerse in other genres will either come back to SC2 for content they already have done or play something they weren't really heavily invested in the first place.
I think it was a pretty good sarcasm, no one from dota or lol is coming to SC2.
Dota and LoL player here. Pretty sure ill play some rankeds for first time since WoL.
But only a few. I dont think there is room for strategy in SC2, its just mechanics.
Joke post?
Not sure if it's an unintentional hilarious joke or intentional trolling or what, but either way it made me chuckle.
On November 04 2017 03:33 Charoisaur wrote: RIP LoL and Dota
This makes me laugh. Since when do you think ftp means people who are immerse in other genres will either come back to SC2 for content they already have done or play something they weren't really heavily invested in the first place.
I think it was a pretty good sarcasm, no one from dota or lol is coming to SC2.
Dota and LoL player here. Pretty sure ill play some rankeds for first time since WoL.
But only a few. I dont think there is room for strategy in SC2, its just mechanics.
SC2 is just mechanics in the same way that LoL is just mechanics until you're good, this idea that StarCraft isn't a strategy game is one of the most absurd comments people make. You can run around doing everything wrong and just kill people because they're bad in LoL just like you can in StarCraft.
Then again I don't know how I ever expected StarCraft to be able to compete with compelling strategic decisions of playing Draven and Nasus :D
On November 04 2017 03:33 Charoisaur wrote: RIP LoL and Dota
This makes me laugh. Since when do you think ftp means people who are immerse in other genres will either come back to SC2 for content they already have done or play something they weren't really heavily invested in the first place.
I think it was a pretty good sarcasm, no one from dota or lol is coming to SC2.
Dota and LoL player here. Pretty sure ill play some rankeds for first time since WoL.
But only a few. I dont think there is room for strategy in SC2, its just mechanics.
Where's the strategy in Lol? I agree that dota has more strategic depth than sc2, but Lol..please
Ok the original comment was stupid but there's no reason to follow it up with something even worse.
This will be super good for the game, it allows people discouraged from buying a hard game like this to give it an honest try! Can't honestly see anything wrong with this. :D
On November 05 2017 04:40 EXRNaRa wrote: Its probably a good thing for Starcraft right now.
But...
its happening yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaars too late. Just sad.
Btw:
To all the people complaning that they spend money on the game:
We all had the chance to experience the game, the tournaments at a time that will never come back. With players that are not with us playing anymore, meta-games that will never comeback and just seeing the evolvement of the game and starcraft in general. At the same time you had the chance to play the games for 7 years, which the other people had not. Think about the time and fun you got over the last couple of years.
Just ridicoulus to be mad about that. Grow up.
So much this, the years I had playing this game with my friends and going to LANS and barcrafts etc... man i get nostalgic thinking about it. Those times I will never get back the energy the fun the drama the characters... I want people to experience the game like I have and having it F2P is a fantastic way to do it,
Starcraft 2 is a brilliant game that deserved all the money I've given for it. It also took a lot of time for them to incorporate all the cosmetic shop stuff that could allow them to sustain free-to-play. Technically I'm sure all that couldn't have been there from the beginning, because: 1.) They had all kinds of problems from the start, with Battle.net 2.0, performance issues, balance issues etc - they barely managed to fix those, late after launch; so no, they couldn't also have had implemented the cosmetic stuff. There wasn't even any arcade at launch. There wasn't co-op that now drives so many players. Improving the editor to allow arcade community development was a huge project that needed a lot of time to grow. 2.) They didn't have 3 campaigns back then to be able to offer 1 for free and hope to hook some buyers for the other 2 campaigns. 3.) You also need serious anti-cheating tools to protect a free-to-play game, because every ban is a registration away from entering again. I'm sure those tools have evolved a lot since launch and this period of time was needed.
I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming. That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
I'm very happy that now I can invite anyone to SC2 without having to draw them a complex scheme of what is free and what isn't and what should they buy if they need to also add some specific experience to what is offered for free.
I really don't understand those moaning mouths. I personally bought all expansions and some packs. But regardless of how much I have spent on the game the entertaining value was much higher than what I have paid for.
Through the course of 7 years I have like 10.000 games played not counting the time spent on Campaigns and Arcades.
This game was the longest entertaining experience in my life and now I am more than excited that finally it is coming to F2P.
If anything, F2P is overdue alongside Blizzard's attention to some amazing Arcade games/ideas.
What kinda shty mentality people must have to feel "robbed" when the game goes F2P ?
On November 04 2017 03:33 Charoisaur wrote: RIP LoL and Dota
This makes me laugh. Since when do you think ftp means people who are immerse in other genres will either come back to SC2 for content they already have done or play something they weren't really heavily invested in the first place.
I think it was a pretty good sarcasm, no one from dota or lol is coming to SC2.
Dota and LoL player here. Pretty sure ill play some rankeds for first time since WoL.
But only a few. I dont think there is room for strategy in SC2, its just mechanics.
Joke post?
Depends on how skilled he is. In my opinion, anything below Platinum league is mainly mechanics. Having a strategy and build mastered means nothing if you don't know how to execute it or macro. Just macroing well gets you into at least Gold, if not Platinum.
I see for newcomers the experience being in this order: 1) campaign 2) commander modes 3) ladder
After the campaign, the commander modes will be a lot of fun to get into at start to develop the taste for the game, so it's great that some commanders are entirely free to level. Afterwards, people will hit the ladder but by then they already know a lot about the mechanics.
Yeah, it feels like they made Commander a thing just to get people to come online, of whom a few may be tempted to ladder again. Still, if it gets anyone back into the game, it'll help. I think that was also the inspiration behind the spawn mode as well, right? Where everyone gets content as long as someone gets content.
On November 05 2017 22:19 Technique wrote: Best move ever by Blizzard. This is so great for the RTS genre.
How can anyone hate on this? I wish all the rts games I love turn free to play so the activity spikes and rts starts thriving again.
Maybe this is even a tool to boost the rts playerbase in anticipation of a possible new Blizzard rts? <3
Doubtful they aren't gonna make any more RTS for the immediate future I don't believe.
Yep. From how Blizzard been acting lately, they will make games of already popular genres. And I really dont see a 7 year old game going free to play reviving the RTS scene. Age of Empires Online was pseudo f2p and it died in less than a year.
They already made the few easy bucks with BW remastered, I would be suprised if they make a new RTS game within the next 5 years.
On November 05 2017 22:19 Technique wrote: Best move ever by Blizzard. This is so great for the RTS genre.
How can anyone hate on this? I wish all the rts games I love turn free to play so the activity spikes and rts starts thriving again.
Maybe this is even a tool to boost the rts playerbase in anticipation of a possible new Blizzard rts? <3
Doubtful they aren't gonna make any more RTS for the immediate future I don't believe.
Yep. From how Blizzard been acting lately, they will make games of already popular genres. And I really dont see a 7 year old game going free to play reviving the RTS scene.
They already made the few easy bucks with BW remastered, I would be suprised if they make a new RTS game within the next 5 years.
It's likely they'd want a story to go with it, and it's also possible they'll keep releasing expansion packs or something for SC2 rather than try to build a new RTS from scratch.
I mention the story because that rules out WC4 in some ways, unless they go with the parallel universe explanation. Meanwhile, I don't think any of their other IPs have the potential to become an RTS, unless you went for the OW backstory or something (which'd be similar to WC3, a mix of hero units and base building).
A Diablo RTS would be interesting as well, but I wouldn't be surprised if they kept that as an action-RPG. Because action-RPG is likely to be a much bigger genre than RTS which isn't popular.
7 years too late and it doesn't change the problem, that MP is still volatile, often not skillbased and therefore often frustrating for those who really wanna try play an "honest" game (meaning without BS). Blizzard didn't change some critical stuff for 7 years or it took them several years to fix some stuff that was criticised about since the beta.
This is good news, but I'd like to know more details about the business model. They only very recently integrated loot boxes into the game didn't they?
On November 06 2017 03:04 Deleuze wrote: This is good news, but I'd like to know more details about the business model.
What is there you dont know? They want money from people buying campaings, skins, announcer pack and other micro content. Just like every other f2p game.
On November 06 2017 00:07 Rollora wrote: 7 years too late and it doesn't change the problem, that MP is still volatile, often not skillbased and therefore often frustrating for those who really wanna try play an "honest" game (meaning without BS). Blizzard didn't change some critical stuff for 7 years or it took them several years to fix some stuff that was criticised about since the beta.
If it wasn't skill based, there wouldn't be the best players on the top... but they are on the top. And sorry, but WTF is "an honest game"? You think cannon rushing is not an honest game?
I am/was a pretty casual SC1/2 player and I think the biggest things that kept me playing are definitely the campaign and Co-op missions.
I can't say for other games, but I think SC1/2 are very focused around 1v1 as opposed to team games, which is the opposite of what a lot of online game players are looking for. As far as player versus player goes, I don't really have a good answer to this. Ladder anxiety (despite the fact that there is unranked one) is often the number 1 reason players I know shy away from playing the game, and having teammates to fall back on is often the key to game success. Both MOBA and FPS follow this pretty religiously with 5v5s.
I'm really not that optimistic in seeing single player (1v1) growths, but hopefully we'll at least bring people in starting with campaigns and at least into team games (pve or pvp)
However, IMO it should have happened with the premiere of LotV. It might be way too late now. I hope I'm wrong, I would love to see SC2 becoming popular again.
probably not a lot more cheater, but a lot more cheaters accounts. As any of them will be able to create infinite number of account. Blizzard needs to make drastic measures to fight cheaters now.
On November 06 2017 20:08 LDaVinci wrote: probably not a lot more cheater, but a lot more cheaters accounts. As any of them will be able to create infinite number of account. Blizzard needs to make drastic measures to fight cheaters now.
On November 06 2017 20:08 LDaVinci wrote: probably not a lot more cheater, but a lot more cheaters accounts. As any of them will be able to create infinite number of account. Blizzard needs to make drastic measures to fight cheaters now.
I thought that they banned IP's.
Because it is hard for someone who wrote a code to hack a game, to make it also change the IP. They need to improve their reaction time, and ban people after few games. Maybe develop an anti hack software (I dunno how efficient this could be) that would block the game of something. Then I'm no hacker myself, but hiring actual hackers to make it safer could also be a good idea (if they didn't have it yet)
On November 06 2017 23:29 itherBVB wrote: great decision.gonna join soon from brood war
Just when I was about to write that f2p SC2 could impossibly be negative in any way you give me a reason :p Ok, so we might lose some BW players, which is bad. I hadn't thought about that.
But apart from that people really shouldn't complain.
So you invested a couple dollars several years ago and now you're not happy because others get it for free? Just take this perspective: You paid to play SC2 from 2010 to 2017. And IMO the early years were the best years. So new players will never get what you got. Also, the price per hour played is ridiculously good anyways, assuming you play multi-player.
Maybe too late, maybe it will bring cheaters along with new players, but definitely positive news.
On November 07 2017 04:05 swissman777 wrote: Can we pls have changes to WoL and HotS ladder maps? I don't think they have changed in a loooooong while
In order for that to happen, I think people who have been playing WoL would need to become map makers and testers themselves since I doubt the StarCraft 2 team wants to/can dedicate people to making anything for it, and I don't think any of the current map makers want to or, if they do, have enough experience with "modern" WoL to make good maps.
On November 07 2017 04:05 swissman777 wrote: Can we pls have changes to WoL and HotS ladder maps? I don't think they have changed in a loooooong while
In order for that to happen, I think people who have been playing WoL would need to become map makers and testers themselves since I doubt the StarCraft 2 team wants to/can dedicate people to making anything for it, and I don't think any of the current map makers want to or, if they do, have enough experience with "modern" WoL to make good maps.
Just simple recycling of old maps would do. I have played HotS for some time after LotV came out and the maps really get old. I don't care if they're balanced or not, just the current limited maps in the ladder pool is really boring and it would be really great if it changed every now and then.
On November 07 2017 04:05 swissman777 wrote: Can we pls have changes to WoL and HotS ladder maps? I don't think they have changed in a loooooong while
In order for that to happen, I think people who have been playing WoL would need to become map makers and testers themselves since I doubt the StarCraft 2 team wants to/can dedicate people to making anything for it, and I don't think any of the current map makers want to or, if they do, have enough experience with "modern" WoL to make good maps.
there were plenty of good maps made during the wol and hots times which were never used on ladder and could easily be added. as a mapmaker, i certainly wouldn't mind going through a bunch of old maps on TL and submitting recommendations to blizzard.
On November 06 2017 16:29 david0925 wrote: I am/was a pretty casual SC1/2 player and I think the biggest things that kept me playing are definitely the campaign and Co-op missions.
I can't say for other games, but I think SC1/2 are very focused around 1v1 as opposed to team games, which is the opposite of what a lot of online game players are looking for. As far as player versus player goes, I don't really have a good answer to this. Ladder anxiety (despite the fact that there is unranked one) is often the number 1 reason players I know shy away from playing the game, and having teammates to fall back on is often the key to game success. Both MOBA and FPS follow this pretty religiously with 5v5s.
I'm really not that optimistic in seeing single player (1v1) growths, but hopefully we'll at least bring people in starting with campaigns and at least into team games (pve or pvp)
I think this really hit the nail on the head. Ladder anxiety, and the huge complexity of the game is probably the big reasons players didn't get into StarCraft. Oh, and also the ladder experience felt pretty lonely. They're trying to change that though, with chatrooms and all that. And free to play is certainly a nice change. Go Blizzard!
i like the f2p decision. i paid for Wol, HotS and LotV but i dont mind in anyway... for me it was always logically that i pay mainly for the campaign. wich didnt change except for WoL...
On November 05 2017 21:43 figq wrote: I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming.
Or maybe there are games much more fun out there, while in the past there was not.
That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW
Or maybe they didn't find the game fun.
already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
not bad, i might try it out again, probably not though
Hard to picture any new player buying SC2 these days, specialy LotV which is much harder than previous versions. It's a good choice to making it free to play.
I do worry about the legion of hackers that will come to ladder tho.
Also i think people that own LotV should be given at least a portrait and a co-op commander of their choice for supporting this game even when Blizzard took forever to fix adepts, ultras, libs, etc.
On November 08 2017 02:18 georgir wrote: Since LOTV ladder would be free now, I expect they will soon drop the support for 3 different ladders - one for each expansion.
Good point. Logically, there is no reason for separate ladders anymore since anyone will be united to F2P ladder.
On November 08 2017 02:18 georgir wrote: Since LOTV ladder would be free now, I expect they will soon drop the support for 3 different ladders - one for each expansion.
Good point. Logically, there is no reason for separate ladders anymore since anyone will be united to F2P ladder.
Some people (a minority to be sure) still want to ladder HotS or WoL though. Blizzard still has to cater to those sick fucks people who think WoL Broodlord/Infestor is the pinnacle of Starcraft.
1. For team ranked, 10 first wins is too much, all free accounts should be able to play team ranked without any requirement. There is no reason for any restriction. For 1v1 ranked, it's nowhere near enough to stop smurfs and maphackers. Dota 2, for instance, requires a phone number plus ~150 games (~100 hours of gameplay) to unlock ranked. The 1v1 ranked requirement should be increased. For example, 10 first wins plus 10 hours of gameplay plus a phone number, or spend $10+.
2. Given that the WoL campaign will be free to all, it should be cleaned up, and it's UI should be updated to HotS/LotV standards. Specifically, WoL should have a Master Archive with its own specific button and that works like the HotS/LotV Master Archive. The hero UI should be updated to the HotS/LotV/co-op hero UI. Old unit models in WoL (and HotS), such as the Tal'Darim using normal protoss skins instead of the red-themed skins in LotV should be updated. Nova and Amon in WoL look different than in LotV, Nova Covert Ops. There are other examples.
3. Remove the WoL/HotS/LotV split in the player profiles as everyone will be on LotV when F2P comes out. For example, on the season snapshot, where it says "1v1 Void", it should just say "1v1". In the ladder page, statistics page, and other places, where you need to click WoL/HotS/LotV, this should be removed. The Expansion Level should be determined by the corresponding settings in Options, so WoL, HotS info would not be displayed when LotV is set. No one cares about WoL and HotS info in the profile.
4. Most divisions are filled with inactive players, and this is only going to get worse with F2P. Something needs to be done about inactive players clogging up the ranks. I suggest defining an activity requirement (e.g. 15 games in the last 3 weeks, which is half the GM activity requirement), make a server-wide leaderboard that ranks only active players by default, based on MMR percentile, with a toggle to view it out of all players. This allows people to meaningfully view their skill rating out of active players, rather than their meaningless division rank in a division filled with inactive players. (Note: bonus pool is a terrible activity requirement, since it treats active players who join mid-season like they're inactive.)
5. Game speed should default to fastest for all difficulty levels in campaign and co-op. Game speed affects the entire tempo of gameplay and having non-brutal difficulties set to lower speeds will dupe new F2P players, train them to play at the wrong speed, leaving them unprepared for ladder on fastest, and will require them to relearn how timings feel when they move into brutal or ladder. It has a significant effect.
6. Swann, Zagara, Vorazun, Karax should be purchasable separately, not just as a bundle with LotV. If a F2P player wants any one of these commanders above level 5, instead of paying the usual $5, they would have to pay $25 for all of LotV.
Of course, there are many other changes that would benefit the game, but these 6 changes relate specifically to having a surge of players who will come with F2P, and they should be implemented as soon as possible given that F2P will be released next week.
So anyone knows how to upgrade your WoL to HotS for free that they said we can do after 8th of November?
Edit: Ok found the answer on reddit.
Noticed many people (like me) tried to click on the upgrade button on the b.net app Starcraft page, to claim the free HoTs upgrade only to find that goes to the store and asks for a purchase.
Dont click on the upgrade, instead on the top right there should be a gift icon, with an orange dot, click on that and claim the gift.
If you cant find the gift, restart your Battle.net App, or from the dropdown with your name click on check gifts. It should appear.
On November 05 2017 21:43 figq wrote: Starcraft 2 is a brilliant game that deserved all the money I've given for it. It also took a lot of time for them to incorporate all the cosmetic shop stuff that could allow them to sustain free-to-play. Technically I'm sure all that couldn't have been there from the beginning, because: 1.) They had all kinds of problems from the start, with Battle.net 2.0, performance issues, balance issues etc - they barely managed to fix those, late after launch; so no, they couldn't also have had implemented the cosmetic stuff. There wasn't even any arcade at launch. There wasn't co-op that now drives so many players. Improving the editor to allow arcade community development was a huge project that needed a lot of time to grow. 2.) They didn't have 3 campaigns back then to be able to offer 1 for free and hope to hook some buyers for the other 2 campaigns. 3.) You also need serious anti-cheating tools to protect a free-to-play game, because every ban is a registration away from entering again. I'm sure those tools have evolved a lot since launch and this period of time was needed.
I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming. That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
I'm very happy that now I can invite anyone to SC2 without having to draw them a complex scheme of what is free and what isn't and what should they buy if they need to also add some specific experience to what is offered for free.
Starcraft 2 is not such a good game, it has design problems that in my opinion are very serious such as deathballs or the disastrous design of some units like the Colossus, Swarmhost, etc. If SC2 is not completely dead it is because no RTS has been launched to compete with it.
On November 05 2017 21:43 figq wrote: Starcraft 2 is a brilliant game that deserved all the money I've given for it. It also took a lot of time for them to incorporate all the cosmetic shop stuff that could allow them to sustain free-to-play. Technically I'm sure all that couldn't have been there from the beginning, because: 1.) They had all kinds of problems from the start, with Battle.net 2.0, performance issues, balance issues etc - they barely managed to fix those, late after launch; so no, they couldn't also have had implemented the cosmetic stuff. There wasn't even any arcade at launch. There wasn't co-op that now drives so many players. Improving the editor to allow arcade community development was a huge project that needed a lot of time to grow. 2.) They didn't have 3 campaigns back then to be able to offer 1 for free and hope to hook some buyers for the other 2 campaigns. 3.) You also need serious anti-cheating tools to protect a free-to-play game, because every ban is a registration away from entering again. I'm sure those tools have evolved a lot since launch and this period of time was needed.
I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming. That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
I'm very happy that now I can invite anyone to SC2 without having to draw them a complex scheme of what is free and what isn't and what should they buy if they need to also add some specific experience to what is offered for free.
Starcraft 2 is not such a good game, it has design problems that in my opinion are very serious such as deathballs or the disastrous design of some units like the Colossus, Swarmhost, etc. If SC2 is not completely dead it is because no RTS has been launched to compete with it.
You can say that about any Blizzard RTS. Go look at any other RTS released in the last 5 years and come back and talk about what a disastrous design looks like.
If people really want sc2 to rise again, they need to stop this stupid assumption that the game is not hugely played because it's the most difficult of competitive games. It's hard to admit but most players want to have fun in a videogame and they are going to play what game delivers them with the most fun, which it's generally a team based experience. I've been guilty for years of this dumb mentality, then I realized how much flawed and poor it was
On November 05 2017 21:43 figq wrote: Starcraft 2 is a brilliant game that deserved all the money I've given for it. It also took a lot of time for them to incorporate all the cosmetic shop stuff that could allow them to sustain free-to-play. Technically I'm sure all that couldn't have been there from the beginning, because: 1.) They had all kinds of problems from the start, with Battle.net 2.0, performance issues, balance issues etc - they barely managed to fix those, late after launch; so no, they couldn't also have had implemented the cosmetic stuff. There wasn't even any arcade at launch. There wasn't co-op that now drives so many players. Improving the editor to allow arcade community development was a huge project that needed a lot of time to grow. 2.) They didn't have 3 campaigns back then to be able to offer 1 for free and hope to hook some buyers for the other 2 campaigns. 3.) You also need serious anti-cheating tools to protect a free-to-play game, because every ban is a registration away from entering again. I'm sure those tools have evolved a lot since launch and this period of time was needed.
I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming. That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
I'm very happy that now I can invite anyone to SC2 without having to draw them a complex scheme of what is free and what isn't and what should they buy if they need to also add some specific experience to what is offered for free.
Starcraft 2 is not such a good game, it has design problems that in my opinion are very serious such as deathballs or the disastrous design of some units like the Colossus, Swarmhost, etc. If SC2 is not completely dead it is because no RTS has been launched to compete with it.
You can say that about any Blizzard RTS. Go look at any other RTS released in the last 5 years and come back and talk about what a disastrous design looks like.
Nice argument, just because a dead genre hasn't seen any stellar releases recently that means that SC2 is comparable to the genre at its peak 15-20 years ago.
[Insert a bunch of laughing emojis with tears in their eyes here]
On November 05 2017 21:43 figq wrote: Starcraft 2 is a brilliant game that deserved all the money I've given for it. It also took a lot of time for them to incorporate all the cosmetic shop stuff that could allow them to sustain free-to-play. Technically I'm sure all that couldn't have been there from the beginning, because: 1.) They had all kinds of problems from the start, with Battle.net 2.0, performance issues, balance issues etc - they barely managed to fix those, late after launch; so no, they couldn't also have had implemented the cosmetic stuff. There wasn't even any arcade at launch. There wasn't co-op that now drives so many players. Improving the editor to allow arcade community development was a huge project that needed a lot of time to grow. 2.) They didn't have 3 campaigns back then to be able to offer 1 for free and hope to hook some buyers for the other 2 campaigns. 3.) You also need serious anti-cheating tools to protect a free-to-play game, because every ban is a registration away from entering again. I'm sure those tools have evolved a lot since launch and this period of time was needed.
I agree with an earlier comment that the decline of SC2 wasn't because of price tag. Overwatch has price tag, no problem, huge growth. It's about the difficulty of the game. It's not for everyone and gamers nowadays are bred to be lazy and lame by the modern standards for easier gaming. That's just how it is. BW was pretty niche in the west too a few years after release, it was only carried by the passion of Korea. And Korea couldn't get as much into SC2, because of too much commitment to BW already and because LoL took the average "casual" gamer in Korea. LoL had very aggressive marketing which SC2 didn't have. That's done already, no way to turn back the past. Free to play will bring some new blood to SC2, it will probably not be a reason for return to domination, but it's definitely not bad for the game, by any stretch.
I'm very happy that now I can invite anyone to SC2 without having to draw them a complex scheme of what is free and what isn't and what should they buy if they need to also add some specific experience to what is offered for free.
Starcraft 2 is not such a good game, it has design problems that in my opinion are very serious such as deathballs or the disastrous design of some units like the Colossus, Swarmhost, etc. If SC2 is not completely dead it is because no RTS has been launched to compete with it.
You can say that about any Blizzard RTS. Go look at any other RTS released in the last 5 years and come back and talk about what a disastrous design looks like.
Nice argument, just because a dead genre hasn't seen any stellar releases recently that means that SC2 is comparable to the genre at its peak 15-20 years ago.
[Insert a bunch of laughing emojis with tears in their eyes here]
There has been tons of releases, all of them outside of Blizzard's titles have completely floundered. That's why it's a dead genre. But please, go on and tell us why you think Age of Mythology, CnC Generals, and The Lord of the Rings: War of the Ring were better than SC2.
Even if you find SC2 inferior to BW, its still going to be top 3 of the entire genre's history.
Even if you find SC2 inferior to BW, its still going to be top 3 of the entire genre's history.
Thank you for making it obvious that you are new to this genre and/or very young... and yes AoM was really good, but even that's probably not top 10, let alone SC2.
The notion that "there have been tons of releases" is so specious... heck there have probably been more remasters and re-releases of old RTS in the last 5 years than new games proper... traditional RTS anyway, if you count Total War it might skew that back in the other direction.
Grey Goo, HW: Deserts of Kharak etc. failed because they didn't have enough hype behind them. Planetary Annihilation failed because it was just kinda boring. DoW 3 failed because it tried wayyyyy too hard to be super esports and didn't give a shit about what 40K fans wanted.
None of this absolves SC2 from the fundamental design problems that have plagued it since its initial release or the continued blunders Blizzard have made with it. Outside of competitive there's also the fact that SC2's campaign tells one of the most insultingly bad stories I've ever seen in a video game of AAA standard polish, I'd literally rather watch a Michael Bay Transformers film instead. That and the lowkey disaster that has been the custom map scene (doubly so if you count their initial pre-WoL claims of creating a marketplace where people would be able to pay for high quality / high content maps and mods thus also ensuring that the creators thereof get paid; not only did that never happen but the mapping scene in general was stillborn because of how atrocious the custom game system was for all of WoL).
Their incompetence to implement basic Battle.net functionality that was around for SC1 and WC3, the lack of which we've had to suffer for years (and some is still fucked to this day) is also a black mark against it being considered a top 3 RTS.
Like if you seriously think SC2 is demonstrably better - as a game, not in commercial aspects such as market relevance, numbers, esports, prize pool, etc (otherwise I bring up the age old counter: sure and Justin Bieber's music is loved by tens of millions around the world, doesn't make him good) - than AoE 2, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, some of the older C&C's, Warcraft 2 and 3, etc. then you are high as hell and frankly I cannot rely on your taste in video games.
Even if you find SC2 inferior to BW, its still going to be top 3 of the entire genre's history.
Thank you for making it obvious that you are new to this genre and/or very young... and yes AoM was really good, but even that's probably not top 10, let alone SC2.
The notion that "there have been tons of releases" is so specious... heck there have probably been more remasters and re-releases of old RTS in the last 5 years than new games proper... traditional RTS anyway, if you count Total War it might skew that back in the other direction.
Grey Goo, HW: Deserts of Kharak etc. failed because they didn't have enough hype behind them. Planetary Annihilation failed because it was just kinda boring. DoW 3 failed because it tried wayyyyy too hard to be super esports and didn't give a shit about what 40K fans wanted.
None of this absolves SC2 from the fundamental design problems that have plagued it since its initial release or the continued blunders Blizzard have made with it. Outside of competitive there's also the fact that SC2's campaign tells one of the most insultingly bad stories I've ever seen in a video game of AAA standard polish, I'd literally rather watch a Michael Bay Transformers film instead. That and the lowkey disaster that has been the custom map scene (doubly so if you count their initial pre-WoL claims of creating a marketplace where people would be able to pay for high quality / high content maps and mods thus also ensuring that the creators thereof get paid; not only did that never happen but the mapping scene in general was stillborn because of how atrocious the custom game system was for all of WoL).
Their incompetence to implement basic Battle.net functionality that was around for SC1 and WC3, the lack of which we've had to suffer for years (and some is still fucked to this day) is also a black mark against it being considered a top 3 RTS.
Like if you seriously think SC2 is demonstrably better - as a game, not in commercial aspects such as market relevance, numbers, esports, prize pool, etc (otherwise I bring up the age old counter: sure and Justin Bieber's music is loved by tens of millions around the world, doesn't make him good) - than AoE 2, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, some of the older C&C's, Warcraft 2 and 3, etc. then you are high as hell and frankly I cannot rely on your taste in video games.
what a surprise, a condescending post from aicila? never happens
Even if you find SC2 inferior to BW, its still going to be top 3 of the entire genre's history.
Thank you for making it obvious that you are new to this genre and/or very young... and yes AoM was really good, but even that's probably not top 10, let alone SC2.
The notion that "there have been tons of releases" is so specious... heck there have probably been more remasters and re-releases of old RTS in the last 5 years than new games proper... traditional RTS anyway, if you count Total War it might skew that back in the other direction.
Grey Goo, HW: Deserts of Kharak etc. failed because they didn't have enough hype behind them. Planetary Annihilation failed because it was just kinda boring. DoW 3 failed because it tried wayyyyy too hard to be super esports and didn't give a shit about what 40K fans wanted.
None of this absolves SC2 from the fundamental design problems that have plagued it since its initial release or the continued blunders Blizzard have made with it. Outside of competitive there's also the fact that SC2's campaign tells one of the most insultingly bad stories I've ever seen in a video game of AAA standard polish, I'd literally rather watch a Michael Bay Transformers film instead. That and the lowkey disaster that has been the custom map scene (doubly so if you count their initial pre-WoL claims of creating a marketplace where people would be able to pay for high quality / high content maps and mods thus also ensuring that the creators thereof get paid; not only did that never happen but the mapping scene in general was stillborn because of how atrocious the custom game system was for all of WoL).
Their incompetence to implement basic Battle.net functionality that was around for SC1 and WC3, the lack of which we've had to suffer for years (and some is still fucked to this day) is also a black mark against it being considered a top 3 RTS.
Like if you seriously think SC2 is demonstrably better - as a game, not in commercial aspects such as market relevance, numbers, esports, prize pool, etc (otherwise I bring up the age old counter: sure and Justin Bieber's music is loved by tens of millions around the world, doesn't make him good) - than AoE 2, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, some of the older C&C's, Warcraft 2 and 3, etc. then you are high as hell and frankly I cannot rely on your taste in video games.
I guess Electronic Arts, Sega, and Microsoft don't have any market relevance? Small indie publishers, there's no way for those company to get hype for those games.
Oh please, go on and talk about how awesome and competitive Dawn of War: Dark Crusade was. Go on. Tell me how the awesome race and unit design is so amazing. I'd love to hear your thoughts on design on a true gem of an RTS.
It's funny you criticize SC2 Battle.net, that's completely valid, but like I said, compare it Dawn of War and Command and Conquer's online service, and you see why I think your standards are way out of whack. Go on, I want to hear you talk about all those exciting Red Alert 3 and Dawn of War 1 custom games you played .
Convince me that those games use of the Gamespy Arcade and their custom games were way better than SC2s. SC2s sure did suck, it was just embarassing when we compare it to the Red Alert 3, Dawn of War 3, and Grey Goo editor. And don't give me that crap about how there was no little no hype, none of those games are 9s or 10s that fell under the radar. Their "design" wasn't good enough to create any longevity in the scene, that's why they fell through. Your Justin Bieber analogy makes no fucking sense when the multiplayer games we're talking about have no community, no scene, because they've been rejected. And that is the only demonstration that counts.
Its actually likely that, because SC:BW had such a large following, SC2 was destined to do well and that its actual game mechanics don't play as large a role in its popularity as people think. It is similar enough that people view it as a natural continuation of the starcraft legacy. As long as it gets those core mechanics right, I think its quite hard for it to fail. But then the question is, can you put SC2 into the "top 3" based only on those core mechanics, assuming everything else is poorly done (assuming you're not judging top 3 by popularity alone)?
The same is true for Diablo 3. A lot of people really hated it, but its also probably one of the "top 3" in its genre because of how many people loved Diablo 2. And it does share many of the same, basic mechanics. But the point is it doesn't necessarily need to be a great game for it to do well, it can just as easily perform well due to the previous game's popularity. People tend to buy or view "the next in the series" in many different markets, whether its popular video games, movies, or iPhones. Its particularly egregious in the case of iPhones...people are fanatical about getting the latest model, even if for all intents and purposes it doesn't do anything different from the previous model.
If the original command and conquer games were as exciting, who knows, maybe the same thing would have happened with C&C RA3? They certainly would have invested much more money into developing a multiplayer service that is as good as battle.net.
That's the other thing, most developers don't really expect their games to become incredible multiplayer experiences, its generally focused on single player, and the multiplayer aspect is secondary. So its not really fair to compare battle.net to gamespy arcade. With SC2, they expected a huge playerbase to be interested in multiplayer. In fact, if anything, they would have made the singleplayer experience secondary to that. Remember SC:BW's mutliplayer success was mostly accidental.
On November 12 2017 16:05 radscorpion9 wrote: Its actually likely that, because SC:BW had such a large following, SC2 was destined to do well and that its actual game mechanics don't play as large a role in its popularity as people think. It is similar enough that people view it as a natural continuation of the starcraft legacy. As long as it gets those core mechanics right, I think its quite hard for it to fail. But then the question is, can you put SC2 into the "top 3" based only on those core mechanics, assuming everything else is poorly done (assuming you're not judging top 3 by popularity alone)?
The same is true for Diablo 3. A lot of people really hated it, but its also probably one of the "top 3" in its genre because of how many people loved Diablo 2. And it does share many of the same, basic mechanics. But the point is it doesn't necessarily need to be a great game for it to do well, it can just as easily perform well due to the previous game's popularity. People tend to buy or view "the next in the series" in many different markets, whether its popular video games, movies, or iPhones. Its particularly egregious in the case of iPhones...people are fanatical about getting the latest model, even if for all intents and purposes it doesn't do anything different from the previous model.
If the original command and conquer games were as exciting, who knows, maybe the same thing would have happened with C&C RA3? They certainly would have invested much more money into developing a multiplayer service that is as good as battle.net.
That's the other thing, most developers don't really expect their games to become incredible multiplayer experiences, its generally focused on single player, and the multiplayer aspect is secondary. So its not really fair to compare battle.net to gamespy arcade. With SC2, they expected a huge playerbase to be interested in multiplayer. In fact, if anything, they would have made the singleplayer experience secondary to that. Remember SC:BW's mutliplayer success was mostly accidental.
By that logic, no sequel would EVER fail. Sequels bomb all the time. Hell, that's why other franchises in the genre have trouble being made, they don't sell, in spite of the successful predecessors, because they're not good. We're still here 7 years later. I think SC2 did better than most sequels ever do. It's not like SC2 had an amazing opening week and then bombed the fuck out the next week like Street Fighter V or Battleborn, which could not sell its first shipment. Same thing with shitty movie sequels, yeah, a shitty movie sequel will do better the opening week, but then plummet right aftewards.
And how is that not fair? The hottest selling game in that genre has a feature that has made it incredibly acclaimed, why wouldnt you expect to even come close to such a game?
SC:BW's multiplayer was "accidental", but they still shipped a powerful custom editor with the game, meanwhile 20 years later, I cant think of another RTS game that ships with a decent editor outside of Blizzard. Also, most of these single player games aren't anything exciting either, a good chunk of em just have standard skirmish conditions and cutscene triggers and call it a day.
I think Dawn of War....2? I wanna say, the campaign was essentially all skirmish maps with cutscenes before and after.
I digress, there is certainly a ton to critique about SC2, its not a perfect game, its still a great game, this bitching about "fundamental design problem" is way overblown. That's why I made the comparison to other RTS games, you guys are making it out SC2 to be worse than Petroglyph shovelware, when there's a lot of great stuff to it.
Even if you find SC2 inferior to BW, its still going to be top 3 of the entire genre's history.
Like if you seriously think SC2 is demonstrably better - as a game, not in commercial aspects such as market relevance, numbers, esports, prize pool, etc (otherwise I bring up the age old counter: sure and Justin Bieber's music is loved by tens of millions around the world, doesn't make him good) - than AoE 2, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, some of the older C&C's, Warcraft 2 and 3, etc. then you are high as hell and frankly I cannot rely on your taste in video games.
This post reads like a bad college newspaper review of a popular album the editorial staff has decided they're too good for.
SC2 is the greatest game RTS (or for me THE best game ever released). I welcome this free to play idea as if you read between all of the lines its a money making great idea.
what do you get for free
1 campaign 2 m,ultiplayer 3 3 coop commanders 4 arcade ??? not sure if this is free not read too much into it from the video announcement
but isnt sc2 already kinda free with the starter edition???
So
For me, i would have a free experience cos all i ever do is hit multiplayer, ranked, play . . .all day.
For MOST who get this game on the free stick they will get the game, realise its no joke and never play again, or keep at it . . . but heres the thing
1. im going to put this on the line right now and open with this. blizz will make another 3 expansions for sc2. You will all pay for this 2. the new comers may buy all the coop commanders, thats 2.49 a time. MOST people already with the game dont care too much abouyt this . . . but 500000, no hard cores might . . .you see the business here? 3. after they do the campaign, theyll get the others, im sure they are not free and may be £10 4. Announcers . . .theyll get hem, 5. Any additional new stuff AND may get them to try heros to play as these characters you suddenly develop a crush over.
its a smart move by blizzz this as the mainstayers, the peoiple of this website, nothings really going to change, but blizzard will tap into at least another 250000 people im guessing at to spend at least 1 in game purchase. Nobody is doing that right now, i got the warchest but i have paid for nothing other than a few of the zerg coop commanders, just because i love and support the company. I am kinda mad tho that back in the real days you have to but a different account for every region, which i did, and then went to get more accounts . . . of which they merged . . .sigh . . .oh well i cant wait to make that free accnt!
On November 12 2017 21:35 beheamothsc wrote: SC2 is the greatest game RTS (or for me THE best game ever released). I welcome this free to play idea as if you read between all of the lines its a money making great idea.
I think you are vastly overestimating the number of players this f2p move will bring. I love sc2 and played/watched it since beta, but this is an "old" game already, going f2p might attract some people but it is a brutal game. I don't think this will really help the player base in the long term. And no, there won't be 3 expansions lol :D Maybe you meant DLCs like Nova Covert Ops?
SC2 F2P will most likely mainly bring back lapsed SC2 fans who bought WoL and maybe even HotS but not LotV or anything that came after that.
I'm sure some totally new people will check it out, maybe for custom maps if that's also free, but the ones most likely to stick around long term are the ones primed to already like it.
It does help that SC2 is basically the only active RTS, so anyone interested in the genre will at some point be open to trying it.
Even if you find SC2 inferior to BW, its still going to be top 3 of the entire genre's history.
Like if you seriously think SC2 is demonstrably better - as a game, not in commercial aspects such as market relevance, numbers, esports, prize pool, etc (otherwise I bring up the age old counter: sure and Justin Bieber's music is loved by tens of millions around the world, doesn't make him good) - than AoE 2, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, some of the older C&C's, Warcraft 2 and 3, etc. then you are high as hell and frankly I cannot rely on your taste in video games.
This post reads like a bad college newspaper review of a popular album the editorial staff has decided they're too good for.
On November 12 2017 16:48 lestye wrote: SC:BW's multiplayer was "accidental", but they still shipped a powerful custom editor with the game, meanwhile 20 years later, I cant think of another RTS game that ships with a decent editor outside of Blizzard. Also, most of these single player games aren't anything exciting either, a good chunk of em just have standard skirmish conditions and cutscene triggers and call it a day.
SC:BW's multiplayer and SC pre-BW multiplayer were not "accidental". which is why they shipped additional multiplayer units like the Lurker, Dark Templar and Medic that radically changed the game just 6 months after the initial SC1 was released in March of 1998.
that is also why they kept on patching and balancing the game post release... because multiplayer was hardly accidental... ITERATION.. ITERATION.. ITERATION.
Since Day 1 Blizzard states their unparalleled quality comes from continuous iteration of their product. Developing a digital interactive experience is a CRAFT.. and iteration makes excellence possible. iteration is a necessary but insufficient condition for excellence.
so ya , SC1 multiplayer was no accident. it was the result of months and months of constant iteration both before and after the initial game was released.
It all depend on Blizzard how many people are gonna come with F2P, are they going to go all out with the advertisement start paying the popular streamers to play SC2 etc or are they just gonna leave it on the youtube channel and battle.net starcraft area (which is going to bring hardly anyone.)
On November 13 2017 20:29 Zaros wrote: It all depend on Blizzard how many people are gonna come with F2P, are they going to go all out with the advertisement start paying the popular streamers to play SC2 etc or are they just gonna leave it on the youtube channel and battle.net starcraft area (which is going to bring hardly anyone.)
Thats why I recommended for them to finally do some cross promotion, like WoW + Hearthstone, Hearthstone + HOTS, HOTS + WoW, Overwatch + HOTS, Diablo + HOTS, etc. SC2 is the only game that didnt get any cross promotion, if they can do something like, level a commander to 5, you get 5 packs or something in Hearthstone, thatd be significant, or an exclusive skin.
On November 13 2017 20:29 Zaros wrote: It all depend on Blizzard how many people are gonna come with F2P, are they going to go all out with the advertisement start paying the popular streamers to play SC2 etc or are they just gonna leave it on the youtube channel and battle.net starcraft area (which is going to bring hardly anyone.)
Thats why I recommended for them to finally do some cross promotion, like WoW + Hearthstone, Hearthstone + HOTS, HOTS + WoW, Overwatch + HOTS, Diablo + HOTS, etc. SC2 is the only game that didnt get any cross promotion, if they can do something like, level a commander to 5, you get 5 packs or something in Hearthstone, thatd be significant, or an exclusive skin.
Yeah if they really want people to get into sc2 they should do this + other advertisement + pay streamers to play.
i agree with cross promotion being essential. They can't just flip a F2P switch and expect success without some marketing and incentives to play. Cross promoting unlocks with their other games shouldn't even cost them anything but a bit of time.
They might be waiting until it's officially released to advertise though.
On November 13 2017 22:34 NasusAndDraven wrote: Sorry if this is off topic, but before ill start to play at the 14th, is there a way to turn off skins in sc2?
Would have prefered if called it something else then free to play tho, almost everyone who heard it thought it would include expansions and ranked ladder. It really really good but it more of an expanded version of the current starter edition then giving away content people bought the game for.
On November 14 2017 07:48 GothGirlGames wrote: Very nice and well done Blizzard.
Would have prefered if called it something else then free to play tho, almost everyone who heard it thought it would include expansions and ranked ladder. It really really good but it more of an expanded version of the current starter edition then giving away content people bought the game for.
This is a good move by blizzard, one of the reasons wc3 was so popular in china was because it was free to play. The only problem i think is that it would have been nice to have the game free to play from the get go there would have been way more players trying out the game and possibly moving it in a different direction where it would be in a more positive position than it is now.
On November 14 2017 12:35 Shock710 wrote: This is a good move by blizzard, one of the reasons wc3 was so popular in china was because it was free to play. The only problem i think is that it would have been nice to have the game free to play from the get go there would have been way more players trying out the game and possibly moving it in a different direction where it would be in a more positive position than it is now.
Wc3 only went f2p in China in the last 2 or 3 years.
On November 14 2017 12:35 Shock710 wrote: This is a good move by blizzard, one of the reasons wc3 was so popular in china was because it was free to play. The only problem i think is that it would have been nice to have the game free to play from the get go there would have been way more players trying out the game and possibly moving it in a different direction where it would be in a more positive position than it is now.
Wc3 only went f2p in China in the last 2 or 3 years.
WC3 was always f2p as far as I'm concerned... As long as you don't use the battle.net. Same with BW.
On November 14 2017 08:16 kinsky wrote: anybody knows at which exact time it will be availabe in europe?
Maintenence will be from 18:00 UTC to 22:00 UTC tomorrow. Release should be within an hour or 2 of that if there are no issues on Blizzard's end.
So, maintenance 18:00-22:00, with a two hour delay would mean that the game is free to play on November 15 in everything east of Ireland, i.e. the vast majority of the player base. It isn't a very SC thing to do, say 14 when it is 15 for most people.
On November 14 2017 12:35 Shock710 wrote: This is a good move by blizzard, one of the reasons wc3 was so popular in china was because it was free to play. The only problem i think is that it would have been nice to have the game free to play from the get go there would have been way more players trying out the game and possibly moving it in a different direction where it would be in a more positive position than it is now.
Wc3 only went f2p in China in the last 2 or 3 years.
WC3 was always f2p as far as I'm concerned... As long as you don't use the battle.net. Same with BW.
If thats the case, then basically every single game on the planet is f2p so there is no difference.
On November 14 2017 08:16 kinsky wrote: anybody knows at which exact time it will be availabe in europe?
Maintenence will be from 18:00 UTC to 22:00 UTC tomorrow. Release should be within an hour or 2 of that if there are no issues on Blizzard's end.
So, maintenance 18:00-22:00, with a two hour delay would mean that the game is free to play on November 15 in everything east of Ireland, i.e. the vast majority of the player base. It isn't a very SC thing to do, say 14 when it is 15 for most people.
yeah, i was so happy to play again today - but it is tommorow for eu me. cause 14=15 in blizzard marketing.
On November 14 2017 12:35 Shock710 wrote: This is a good move by blizzard, one of the reasons wc3 was so popular in china was because it was free to play. The only problem i think is that it would have been nice to have the game free to play from the get go there would have been way more players trying out the game and possibly moving it in a different direction where it would be in a more positive position than it is now.
Wc3 only went f2p in China in the last 2 or 3 years.
WC3 was always f2p as far as I'm concerned... As long as you don't use the battle.net. Same with BW.
If thats the case, then basically every single game on the planet is f2p so there is no difference.
sorry i didnt write it very clearly, what i meant was that because wc3 was pirate-able it allowed gamers especially in that era to jump right in and try it out, especially because it was also a blizzard game which had a pretty big rep. Every version in an internet cafe in china was pretty much a fake version just ultising the LAN mode for people to play, the others were private servers where it was like a huge chatroom and you would be able to host games. Basically if your friends are playing it or you see someone playing it and it looks interesting there is no paywall theres nothing stopping you from just downloading it from the thousands of gamer sites that you probably visited anyway.
Super easy of access, free and blizzard game (aka cool story and cool designs) thats a huge part of why the chinese wc3 was well developed. If you have that many people playing the game you are bound to find some amazing players.
I think starcraft suffered from that, in my point of view. I had friends who were super exciting during the beta where a leaked version of WoL was shown and you just played a 1v1 match. But all were unwilling to try out the game when it came out because of the paywall, wc3 was still alive, bw was still alive, there were free games like dota, then LoL, then dota2. Each expansion after each expansion compared to other free games which had also reached blizzard quality, kinda pushed them away from it.
Only the one or 2 hardcore RTS friends tried it out, but even they lost interest because their friends weren't playing it so they stopped. Yeah you can call them cheap, stingy w/e you feel but fact of the matter is alot of people pirate games and wc3 was a huge one in china. It was practically free.
As a Terran player I am contemplating staying away from the game for a few weeks until Blizzard releases a balance patch.
It seem like both bio and mech was screwed over compared to the other races.
Fungal is broken if you play bio. Mech only works as a timing attack before Hive since Ravens are really weak compared to pre-patch. Meanwhile Zerg still have all their tools for dismanteling mech.
In TvP the new Protoss timings are insane due to chrono boost. Good luck trying to use mech agains the new blink stalker timings. Even bio will have huge problems trying to compete with Protoss now.
Basically until fungal, vipers and chronboost are nerfed, I see no reason to use Terran.
On November 14 2017 12:35 Shock710 wrote: This is a good move by blizzard, one of the reasons wc3 was so popular in china was because it was free to play. The only problem i think is that it would have been nice to have the game free to play from the get go there would have been way more players trying out the game and possibly moving it in a different direction where it would be in a more positive position than it is now.
Wc3 only went f2p in China in the last 2 or 3 years.
WC3 was always f2p as far as I'm concerned... As long as you don't use the battle.net. Same with BW.
If thats the case, then basically every single game on the planet is f2p so there is no difference.
Nope, all Blizzard games after WoW are online only so you can't really pirate them. That wasn't the case with their earlier titles... The most popular ones - BW, WC3 and D2.
On November 14 2017 21:14 MockHamill wrote: As a Terran player I am contemplating staying away from the game for a few weeks until Blizzard releases a balance patch.
It seem like both bio and mech was screwed over compared to the other races.
Fungal is broken if you play bio. Mech only works as a timing attack before Hive since Ravens are really weak compared to pre-patch. Meanwhile Zerg still have all their tools for dismanteling mech.
In TvP the new Protoss timings are insane due to chrono boost. Good luck trying to use mech agains the new blink stalker timings. Even bio will have huge problems trying to compete with Protoss now.
Basically until fungal, vipers and chronboost are nerfed, I see no reason to use Terran.
Well, assuming that's true... sounds like the best time there is for you to try out Zerg or Protoss for a while!
On November 14 2017 12:35 Shock710 wrote: This is a good move by blizzard, one of the reasons wc3 was so popular in china was because it was free to play. The only problem i think is that it would have been nice to have the game free to play from the get go there would have been way more players trying out the game and possibly moving it in a different direction where it would be in a more positive position than it is now.
Wc3 only went f2p in China in the last 2 or 3 years.
WC3 was always f2p as far as I'm concerned... As long as you don't use the battle.net. Same with BW.
If thats the case, then basically every single game on the planet is f2p so there is no difference.
Nope, all Blizzard games after WoW are online only so you can't really pirate them. That wasn't the case with their earlier titles... The most popular ones - BW, WC3 and D2.
What about every other title one the planet? Is Assasins Creed F2P? Counterstrike? I guess Metal Gear Solid 5 was F2P?
Coincidentally just today a colleague mentioned that he used to play Starcraft but didn't buy LotV because it was too expensive. I of course immediately told him that it's free-to-play now and he said that he might play again then. + 1 player I guess.
On November 15 2017 03:20 Charoisaur wrote: So today SC2 went free to play...
Coincidentally just today a colleague mentioned that he used to play Starcraft but didn't buy LotV because it was too expensive. I of course immediately told him that it's free-to-play now and he said that he might play again then. + 1 player I guess.
Well, it's really more like tomorrow it will go F2P.
On November 15 2017 03:20 Charoisaur wrote: So today SC2 went free to play...
Coincidentally just today a colleague mentioned that he used to play Starcraft but didn't buy LotV because it was too expensive. I of course immediately told him that it's free-to-play now and he said that he might play again then. + 1 player I guess.
Well, it's really more like tomorrow it will go F2P.
you can download it right now and play for free ARCADE, team matchmaking, first 3 WOL missions and LOTV prologue for free. Yes. right now.
Tomorrow you will be able to play all commanders in coop (now you can play only few commanders) untill level 5 and Raynor-Artanis-Kerrigan till infinite level.
On November 14 2017 12:35 Shock710 wrote: This is a good move by blizzard, one of the reasons wc3 was so popular in china was because it was free to play. The only problem i think is that it would have been nice to have the game free to play from the get go there would have been way more players trying out the game and possibly moving it in a different direction where it would be in a more positive position than it is now.
Wc3 only went f2p in China in the last 2 or 3 years.
WC3 was always f2p as far as I'm concerned... As long as you don't use the battle.net. Same with BW.
If thats the case, then basically every single game on the planet is f2p so there is no difference.
Nope, all Blizzard games after WoW are online only so you can't really pirate them. That wasn't the case with their earlier titles... The most popular ones - BW, WC3 and D2.
What about every other title one the planet? Is Assasins Creed F2P? Counterstrike? I guess Metal Gear Solid 5 was F2P?
I don't really know what are you trying to say here. In the late 90s and early 2000s nobody was buying games in Eastern Europe(most likely in China too, I can't speak for them). The most popular games were the ones that can be pirated and played on private servers with your friends in gaming clubs. This played huge role for the popularity of Dota and WC3 in China and Easter Europe.
On November 15 2017 03:20 Charoisaur wrote: So today SC2 went free to play...
Coincidentally just today a colleague mentioned that he used to play Starcraft but didn't buy LotV because it was too expensive. I of course immediately told him that it's free-to-play now and he said that he might play again then. + 1 player I guess.
Well, it's really more like tomorrow it will go F2P.
Uh okay, hopefully he doesn't try it today and accuses me of lying......
On November 14 2017 07:48 GothGirlGames wrote: Very nice and well done Blizzard.
Would have prefered if called it something else then free to play tho, almost everyone who heard it thought it would include expansions and ranked ladder. It really really good but it more of an expanded version of the current starter edition then giving away content people bought the game for.
It does include ranked ladder.
Yes you are correct. It didn't list it on the news I read. I think it was because you need 10 first wins of a day, meaning it takes 10 days (or more) to unlock it.
I can see how it probably just healthy for any new player to wait a "week" before try to compete on ranked anyway. Also it fair blockade against old players just making tons of accounts for smurfing, but it also promote it alittle bit.
Because I don't think the people that would want to flood the server with accounts would make them one and one so this delay have great effect but rather make like ten at one go and then win that first game on all everyday so that when day 10 comes they all alive and ready to "smurf" or "troll" the ladder.
With that said I am happy it does included ranked and the delay is for sure better then none at all.
On November 14 2017 12:35 Shock710 wrote: This is a good move by blizzard, one of the reasons wc3 was so popular in china was because it was free to play. The only problem i think is that it would have been nice to have the game free to play from the get go there would have been way more players trying out the game and possibly moving it in a different direction where it would be in a more positive position than it is now.
Wc3 only went f2p in China in the last 2 or 3 years.
WC3 was always f2p as far as I'm concerned... As long as you don't use the battle.net. Same with BW.
SC2 was free to play since 1month after release on custom server
I think that the biggest barrier to MULTIPLAYER SC2, at least, has always been that 1 on 1 competition in a strategy game is very personal and ego intensive, i.e. a lot of people are afraid of or reluctant to play because of the blow to the ego in losing at such a game.
People pay stupid money for terrible console games so I doubt it's that.
I think it's a little different in team games, or in a free for all shooter like Player Uknown: Battlegrounds because there's other luck factors, a loss isn't always down to your skill, and you can finish in the middle of the pack.
It's like chess against other humans. The ego investment is intense and a lot of people are reluctant to make it. For a lot of players like me it took tons of games of SC2 to get "jaded" to losses and not so afraid to queue up another game.
On November 18 2017 07:11 LordYama wrote: I think that the biggest barrier to MULTIPLAYER SC2, at least, has always been that 1 on 1 competition in a strategy game is very personal and ego intensive, i.e. a lot of people are afraid of or reluctant to play because of the blow to the ego in losing at such a game.
People pay stupid money for terrible console games so I doubt it's that.
I think it's a little different in team games, or in a free for all shooter like Player Uknown: Battlegrounds because there's other luck factors, a loss isn't always down to your skill, and you can finish in the middle of the pack.
It's like chess against other humans. The ego investment is intense and a lot of people are reluctant to make it. For a lot of players like me it took tons of games of SC2 to get "jaded" to losses and not so afraid to queue up another game.
For me I have the exact opposite reaction probably one of my favorite things about Starcraft is that it's a 1v1 game. I've really enjoyed other competitive games like overwatch and lol but once I was halfway decent I found games to frequently be frustrating because ranking up was not dependent purely on personal skill but instead involved quit a bit of luck in in what teammates matchmaking gave you. The nice thing about sc2 is it's all up to you to win or lose thus laddering feels more skillful and less luck based.
On November 18 2017 07:11 LordYama wrote: I think that the biggest barrier to MULTIPLAYER SC2, at least, has always been that 1 on 1 competition in a strategy game is very personal and ego intensive, i.e. a lot of people are afraid of or reluctant to play because of the blow to the ego in losing at such a game.
People pay stupid money for terrible console games so I doubt it's that.
I think it's a little different in team games, or in a free for all shooter like Player Uknown: Battlegrounds because there's other luck factors, a loss isn't always down to your skill, and you can finish in the middle of the pack.
It's like chess against other humans. The ego investment is intense and a lot of people are reluctant to make it. For a lot of players like me it took tons of games of SC2 to get "jaded" to losses and not so afraid to queue up another game.
For me I have the exact opposite reaction probably one of my favorite things about Starcraft is that it's a 1v1 game. I've really enjoyed other competitive games like overwatch and lol but once I was halfway decent I found games to frequently be frustrating because ranking up was not dependent purely on personal skill but instead involved quit a bit of luck in in what teammates matchmaking gave you. The nice thing about sc2 is it's all up to you to win or lose thus laddering feels more skillful and less luck based.
I'm totally with you, but I think people who enjoy the intense one on one competition like on SC2 ladder are in the minority of gamers.
On November 18 2017 07:11 LordYama wrote: I think that the biggest barrier to MULTIPLAYER SC2, at least, has always been that 1 on 1 competition in a strategy game is very personal and ego intensive, i.e. a lot of people are afraid of or reluctant to play because of the blow to the ego in losing at such a game.
People pay stupid money for terrible console games so I doubt it's that.
I think it's a little different in team games, or in a free for all shooter like Player Uknown: Battlegrounds because there's other luck factors, a loss isn't always down to your skill, and you can finish in the middle of the pack.
It's like chess against other humans. The ego investment is intense and a lot of people are reluctant to make it. For a lot of players like me it took tons of games of SC2 to get "jaded" to losses and not so afraid to queue up another game.
For me I have the exact opposite reaction probably one of my favorite things about Starcraft is that it's a 1v1 game. I've really enjoyed other competitive games like overwatch and lol but once I was halfway decent I found games to frequently be frustrating because ranking up was not dependent purely on personal skill but instead involved quit a bit of luck in in what teammates matchmaking gave you. The nice thing about sc2 is it's all up to you to win or lose thus laddering feels more skillful and less luck based.
I'm totally with you, but I think people who enjoy the intense one on one competition like on SC2 ladder are in the minority of gamers.
+1, but lately i've been enjoying more & more my 2v2, idk if it's meta, mappool, LotV all of this or just me, but i hope new SC player can chill &train macro there & go 1v1 when they feel really alright. (1v1 is the best + i think it's the best way to improve)