128 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

This is fantastic business on Blizzard's part. It's incredibly poor consumer sense on the part of the 80,000 that bought it.



Wrong, bad, unethical, unintelligent sheep, or taken advantage of, who can really say without it becoming no more than a "no, you!" argument.



In the end it's $25 for a virtual horse and boosts a couple stats on a game. If that's worth $25 then so be it. Any time I'm asked about it, I'll say that kind of thing is ridiculous.

[crysischaos]

I think the concern with something like this is that when devs see that they can sell anything as DLC, whether it adds to the game or not, they will create it; and spend less time creating new games, rather than more cost effective DLC. If you want to spend your money on something like this, then that's your choice. But increasing prices for DLC that adds less and less content, means there will be people who will buy it, and likely those who are spending a lot on DLC will purchase less actual games.

[Kohaku]

the_one_54321 wrote...

This is fantastic business on Blizzard's part. It's incredibly poor consumer sense on the part of the 80,000 that bought it.

Wrong, bad, unethical, unintelligent sheep, or taken advantage of, who can really say without it becoming no more than a "no, you!" argument.

In the end it's $25 for a virtual horse and boosts a couple stats on a game. If that's worth $25 then so be it. Any time I'm asked about it, I'll say that kind of thing is ridiculous.

That's the wonderful thing about it. They are making money. I don't care if I get called anything under the sun. If I felt guilty or even stupid I would have never admitted to buying it. It's not like any of you would have been the wiser. I did admit it because... well. It's a pretty horse. ~Shrug~

It's the value to the person. There were tons of people on this message board calling all of Bioware's DLC over priced and a waste of money. I brought them all of them but Kasumi, that's mainly because I keep forgetting. Do I regret getting any of them? No. Do I regret getting anything else I've brought that was just virtual kittens or clothes or horses? No.

[nikki191]

wow i think it sort of trumps the horse armour dlc bethusda released for oblivion.. $25 ? an experiment in how far you can push consumers with pricing? blizard executives need to clone a mini mamoth as a talking piece for their office maybe? plan to finally buy a country and rename it blizzardtopia?

[Kohaku]

crysischaos wrote...

I think the concern with something like this is that when devs see that they can sell anything as DLC, whether it adds to the game or not, they will create it; and spend less time creating new games, rather than more cost effective DLC. If you want to spend your money on something like this, then that's your choice. But increasing prices for DLC that adds less and less content, means there will be people who will buy it, and likely those who are spending a lot on DLC will purchase less actual games.

This is my issue. I'll buy whatever I want if the pricing makes sense to me but it does seem like they are taking away from doing other things. You mean to tell me they couldn't have come up with new areas or something rather than a horse and a new pet?

Doing their trial for these past few days showed me they haven't learned a damn thing about what makes the game ****** poor as it is. Any challenge in the game is long gone. All the prices are screwed so anyone can have anything. The amount of money you get from doing a quest is outrageous. I came back with about 180-200 gold and since Friday that's jumped to 360. I didn't even do anything but do some quests and sell junk to NPCs.

They need to work on the core game play but that’s talking to a wall.

[Giant Panther]

Now THAT is how you do business, brilliant on Blizzards part

[Noir201]

Kerridan Kaiba wrote...

crysischaos wrote...

I think the concern with something like this is that when devs see that they can sell anything as DLC, whether it adds to the game or not, they will create it; and spend less time creating new games, rather than more cost effective DLC. If you want to spend your money on something like this, then that's your choice. But increasing prices for DLC that adds less and less content, means there will be people who will buy it, and likely those who are spending a lot on DLC will purchase less actual games.

This is my issue. I'll buy whatever I want if the pricing makes sense to me but it does seem like they are taking away from doing other things. You mean to tell me they couldn't have come up with new areas or something rather than a horse and a new pet?

Doing their trial for these past few days showed me they haven't learned a damn thing about what makes the game ****** poor as it is. Any challenge in the game is long gone. All the prices are screwed so anyone can have anything. The amount of money you get from doing a quest is outrageous. I came back with about 180-200 gold and since Friday that's jumped to 360. I didn't even do anything but do some quests and sell junk to NPCs.

They need to work on the core game play but that’s talking to a wall.

Agree with Kerridan, i couldn't go back to wow, cause it's getting to the point you're handed almost everything on a plate, without any challenge, it's almost insulting.

Hope Diablo 3 won't go down same path

[Kohaku]

scyphozoa wrote...

I will say, that compared to the decade long industry standard of "you give us 50 dollars and we'll give you 1 video game" the new SC2 business model is, IMO, exploitation of a loyal fanbase. Just like any purchase, these people can choose not to buy all 3 boxes of SC2. But Blizzard's marketing this business model, and justifying it by filling each box with single player content in a predominantly multiplayer game.

now some people might value the "30 missions" and the single player content, but I see this as withholding classes and units from multiplayer gameplay intentionally to sell boxes. to me, this overtly crosses the line into fragmenting 1 game into 3 boxes. its certainly fair to debate that the additional single player content has a value, but not to me.

i say keep all 90 of your single player missions Blizzard and sell me one 50.00$ box that gives me multiplayer only with every multiplayer unit. (yeah never going to happen, right?)

I'm so apprehensive about spending the money on Starcraft 2 after they hit us with that nugget of information. I may not have an issue with items but I damn sure have a problem with piecing software like they intend to do. If fills me with dread to know I have to buy these so called "expansions" when really all they are doing is selling us a chapter at a time.

[Kohaku]

I was trying to figure out how that was going to work myself scyphozoa. I can't see the point of playing the game online if everyone will have to be the same faction until the new expansion comes out. Will that mean years of Zerg on Zerg battles or whoever comes first?

[crysischaos]

Diablo 3, and SC2 are also now $60 each, thanks in part to MW2 selling so well on the pc at $60

[Tirigon]

Blizzard makes good money. Hell, if their games were only half as good as their profit they´d be the best damned company in the world.

Unfortunately, that is not so, and WoW sucks badly.

Modifié par Tirigon, 20 avril 2010 - 06:49 .

[Tirigon]

crysischaos wrote...

Diablo 3, and SC2 are also now $60 each, thanks in part to MW2 selling so well on the pc at $60

MW2 = worst game eva, imo.

I really don´t understand jow that sh!t can sell so well.

[NeroSparda]

crysischaos wrote...

Diablo 3, and SC2 are also now $60 each, thanks in part to MW2 selling so well on the pc at $60

Tidus: HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Now you PC users can feel us console users' pain! But seriously, what the hell? That is just messed up, though with the US economy... I just hope that this would help... On topic, nice looking horse. I just don't think it is worth the money, granted I don't play WoW. I play SMT: Imagine, or at least I used till before I got bored and my group stopped going online... Oh snap, I got off topic!

[NeroSparda]

Tirigon wrote...

crysischaos wrote...

Diablo 3, and SC2 are also now $60 each, thanks in part to MW2 selling so well on the pc at $60

MW2 = worst game eva, imo.

I really don´t understand jow that sh!t can sell so well.

The epic feeling that you got the chance to snipe someone in the air, or while that someone is in the air. The blood pumping in your vein until you are gunned down. That you need to keep yourself alert. Like in ME, unlike Dragon Age.

[the_one_54321]

NeroSparda wrote...
Now you PC users can feel us console users' pain!

I play games across all platforms. (except Xbox because that system isn't worth the plastic case it sits inside) This... not entirely unexpected. Game prices haven't gone up in years. I guess it was about time. But I'm not super happy about it.

[eternalnightmare13]

If BW made a saddle and bridle Alt Appearance pack for ME2 I'd buy it...

[bzombo]

hoysexyjew wrote...

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Proof that WoW rots the brain, right there....

Jesus H. Jumped-upped Christ on a Pogo Stick!

Quite True good Sir, the funny thing is that everywhere I've looked, WoW players seem to be rationalising paying $25 for something as pathetic as this...

Leads me to believe that most WoW players would probably all jump off a cliff if Blizzard told them there was dlc at the bottom.

That would be a good thing, though

"everyone who jumps gets the flaming sword of death. one swing kills all enemies." *everyone jumps* those who survive the fall are then asked for $25 payment for the sword, plus taxes, fees, and then have to download yet another time consuming, bandwidth hogging patch.

[bzombo]

AshedMan wrote...

Selling items that are more than cosmetic is one hell of a slippery slope. They have now crossed the line. I don't play WoW. I don't really care about it. But until this point, Blizzard had some integrity. That is gone. They are no better than the gold sellers. Expect more to follow.

i don't blame the company. i blame the consumers for buying it. if i could sell bags of dog crap and vomit and make a fortune i'd do it. people aren't willing to buy it, so no one sells it. gamers are weird in that they'll buy anything shiny.

[bzombo]

scyphozoa wrote...

TRH is terrible. I don't care what happens in WOW but this, combined with how Blizzard is boxing SC2 makes me think Diablo3 (the Blizzard game/franchise I care about) will be milked to death. It makes me very sad to think I'll have to buy 5 starter boxes of Diablo3 just to play each class - or some BS.

As for Blizzard Devs, Erich and Max Schaefer co-founded and work at Runic games which recently released Torchlight. David Brevik now works for Turbine as creative director.

torchlight's a pretty cool game. they really captured what i like about the old diablo games. doesn't hurt that they worked on diablo. :happy:

[bzombo]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I like how, on the internet, anything you don't agree with is automatically wrong, bad, or unethical, and that anyone who buys a product you don't like is automatically an unintelligent sheep or is being taken advantage of.

well, if everyone liked the same things, disliked the same things, went drastically out of the way to be completely inoffensive and polite, and never stirred the pot, forums would consist of, "i love this!" "i love this too!" "i hate this!" "so do i!". it would get annoying really fast. sitting on the fence only works for so long before it becomes obnoxious. as a representative of bioware i understand you need to do it for the most part, but i don't understand the need to call people out for discussing whether a dlc purchase is ridiculous or not. 

Modifié par bzombo, 20 avril 2010 - 08:23 .

[NitrAce]

Wow that makes MW2 stimulus package look like the best ****ing deal ever...

[Outamyhead]

$25 for an invisible horse...how much was the most expensive DLC for DA, $5? And it added about an hour of extra storyline, game play, and some cool items, now when you compare the two...an invisible horse (that's not really invisible), or an hour of storyline, game play and extra kit....hmmm.