[Scotty]

Of course, they can't possibly raise that 8-digit figure from the 8-figure player base, can they (it hit 10 million players January last year)?

Not in this case, no, that this is a blatant rip-off is undeniable fact, regardless of how good the game is.

I see.  So the quality of the game has nothing to do with it?  This game could be God's gift to humanity (it isn't, I know), and it still wouldn't be worth paying for?  Also, how can you pass off that opinion as a fact, much less an undeniable one?  So you think it's a rip-off.  Bully for you, go sulk with all the other people who think that, and let the people who don't play the stupid game.

[Flipside]

Like I said, it's not about opinion, it's about fact, not all rip-offs are illegal, or even neccesarily 'bad', but they are still rip-offs.

I'm glad you like the game and hope you carry on enjoying it, but the idea of 'you get what you pay for' is a highly dubious analogy when taken to the world of Digital Content, and when you, as a fanbase, are paying $135 million a month, you've got to really take a critical look at what you are 'getting' for it.

Of course, they can't possibly raise that 8-digit figure from the 8-figure player base, can they (it hit 10 million players January last year)?

Yes, they have a 10 million player-base, which they get 8 figures from, and yet they STILL want another $50 from each of them for each expansion.

I see.  So the quality of the game has nothing to do with it?  This game could be God's gift to humanity (it isn't, I know), and it still wouldn't be worth paying for?  Also, how can you pass off that opinion as a fact, much less an undeniable one?  So you think it's a rip-off.  Bully for you, go sulk with all the other people who think that, and let the people who don't play the stupid game.

1 : The quality of the game was already being paid for with monthly subscriptions, the fact of the matter is there was absolutely no monetary need for Blizzard to ask for yet more cash from their customers and yet, they did. That people chose to pay it, that's their choice, but there's no argument whatsoever that can actually justify the need of the extra money from players.

2: Grow up.

[Leeko]

1 : The quality of the game was already being paid for with monthly subscriptions, the fact of the matter is there was absolutely no monetary need for Blizzard to ask for yet more cash from their customers and yet, they did. That people chose to pay it, that's their choice, but there's no argument whatsoever that can actually justify the need of the extra money from players.

2: Grow up.

1: Right, because big businesses love to stop being big businesses. It's just how the capitalist system works, get used to it. Already large corporations have never tried to justify making more money. That would be like saying Wal-Mart should give away free groceries, or Microsoft should start handing out copies of Windows install disks for free.
They should... but that's beside the point, and a communist speaking.
Ahem. They won't.

2: I love irony too.

I tend to agree with Scotty though... don't force your opinion on everyone else. Don't try to force people to change theirs. If you don't like WoW, feel free to keep on disliking it. Just don't be so loudmouthed and condescending about it.
*Tries hard to resist the urge to make an analogy to the church*

And WoW is up to 11 million now.

[Flipside]

So you are changing your argument from 'It's worth it' to 'Well, it's just business'? Because that's the argument I've been taking from the top, calling it a rip-off does not mean it's bad, it just means it's a rip-off, it's unjustified, but it works, best of luck to them, but that still doesn't mean it's not unjustified.

2 : I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but when I start telling you to 'go sulk' you'll know I'm being childish...

I'm not forcing an opinion, the fact that Blizzard charge money they don't need is not an opinion, I'm not telling you to like the game or not like the game, either for its content or its price, I'm simply saying don't convince yourself that the $50 is justified in some way, either take it on the chin, pay the money and enjoy the game, or don't, but don't pretend they need or deserve the money.

I'm not sure I like your hints at church like mentality here, once again, I've not dictated to anyone whether to play or not.

Oh, and I'd like people to post all the comments I've made that are 'loud-mouthed' or 'condescending'.

[Leeko]

No, I'm debasing your argument. You're basically saying they should make games for free.

I'm not forcing an opinion...

Uh huh.

...but don't pretend they need or deserve the money.

Eh? You seem to be contradicting yourself there. It's my opinion that they deserve it (though I am aware they don't need it). That's not to say I'm going to open my wallet and say "Here, take it all, you've earned it!" I have respect for them, and I think what you get for their price is worth it. It's your opinion that WoW is a ripoff.

Value is a highly subjective thing, and I will once again recall that quote...
"Everything is worth what the buyer will pay for it."

But besides that, saying that one of the greatest developers in the history of PC gaming doesn't deserve a reward for their hard work and outstanding achievements is absurd.

[Flipside]

How, exactly is $135 MILLION a month, 'for free'?

And I repeat, not an opinion, a fact, Blizzard did not need to charge for it, but they could charge for it, so they did charge for it. The fact you are willing to pay for it is not evidence that it is not a rip-off, merely evidence that it is a rip-off that works.

Why do people assume this is a bad thing? I bought three packages of X3 that were essentially the same game, fine, my choice, but that doesn't mean I wasn't ripped off, I'm just not mad about it. People seem to think I'm somehow insulting them by suggesting that there was no need for Blizzard to charge them $50, I'm not, I've not called one single person who has chosen to pay that money 'stupid' or 'daft' or anything of the sort, because I don't think they are, possibly a bit gullible, but as my X3 example shows, they are not alone.

What I honestly don't understand is the level of hostility I'm meeting for daring to suggest that Blizzard might be exploiting their customer base, when that's what customer bases are for.

[Leeko]

No one needs to charge for anything. That's not a valid argument.

And I didn't mean to say $135 million was for free. That's the monthly fee for playing the game and its large content patches. But for expansion content - which is too large to ever be included in a content patch - you have to pay. It makes sense. They DO update the game for free, it's their largest updates that cost money.

I'm not assuming "it's a bad thing," but that doesn't change that it is my opinion that $50 for an enormous expansion pack is worth it, and I'm entitled to that opinion. Value is a relativistic thing; the same item is worth many different values to different people. WoW happens to appeal to my quite a lot, and I happen to think that $50 is worth it. I'm not saying they aren't exploiting us - it's true they could easily give expansion packs away for free and still get by quite well - but I'm willing to pay.

[Flipside]

Check that Register article, the cost for maintaining servers, paying staff etc for 2 years is $200 million, that's less than 2 months income, what happens to the rest of the Billion dollars per year, how much, do you think, is poured back into development?

Yes, your entitled to any opinion you want, I've never once said otherwise, but the fact remains that there's no justifiable reason to charge that money other than the fact that people are willing to pay it.

[Leeko]

I did read the article, and "pouring money into development" would simply mean either hiring more staff (which would dilute the visionary team that's already there, and is already large enough and producing content at a decent rate) or increasing the wage of the existing development team.

I won't argue with you on the fact that there's no justification for charging money for expansions. I am a communist after all. I just happen to not mind. It would seem we aren't arguing anymore.

[BloodEagle]

IN BEFORE LOCK[/inanity]

----

And I didn't mean to say $135 million was for free. That's the monthly fee for playing the game and its large content patches.

Then Holy Hell, they're overcharging. A Trip-A class title generally has a development cycle of at least eight months, and generally costs half that much.

But for expansion content - which is too large to ever be included in a content patch - you have to pay. It makes sense.

Just how many DVDs are in that box!? Because I'm pretty sure that you can download the entire game through a dedicated client.

And that's beside the point, because (IIRC) WoW steals uses bandwidth from its customers through P2P file sharing (see: BitTorrent protocols, and the like) for their patches.

They DO update the game for free, it's their largest updates that cost money.

....

....

And I didn't mean to say $135 million was for free. That's the monthly fee for playing the game and its large content patches.

[Flipside]

I did read the article, and "pouring money into development" would simply mean either hiring more staff (which would dilute the visionary team that's already there, and is already large enough and producing content at a decent rate) or increasing the wage of the existing development team.

I won't argue with you on the fact that there's no justification for charging money for expansions. I am a communist after all. I just happen to not mind. It would seem we aren't arguing anymore.

Hehe, I don't have any gripe with you, best of luck if you have the money and feel it's worth it, so we'll leave it at that with the discussion To be honest, knowing me, if I could afford the monthly fee, I'd probably be shelling out for the expansions as well, regardless of my feelings towards doing so

Well, development would mostly be in the form of underlying technologies, I'd like to see more effort put into decreasing waiting lists, and loosening up some of the more laggy servers, last I heard these could both be problematical at times, that, I think, would be a great place to start, using the money to improve the online experience for those that already play.

[Leeko]

Just how many DVDs are in that box!? Because I'm pretty sure that you can download the entire game through a dedicated client.

Yay misinterpretation!

Okay, you could say that it's not free because you pay $15 a month. But even so, they have no obligation to make content patches. They could keep making expansions without the content patches in between and still get $15 a month. So the content patches really are for free - you don't have to pay extra to play them.

WoW hardly uses any bandwidth - at least not enough to make a game of StarCraft (yeah I know, Blizzard fanboy here) lag while I'm on WoW and waiting for a raid to assemble.

Only one DVD for Wrath of the Lich King, and yes you can download it through a client (though it takes 8 hours on Roadrunner broadband), but the new content is as vast ingame as it is an improvement over Burning Crusade and, especially, vanilla WoW.

...if I could afford the monthly fee, I'd probably be shelling out for the expansions as well, regardless of my feelings towards doing so

Yeah... I'm in that boat too. Communism!

Well, development would mostly be in the form of underlying technologies, I'd like to see more effort put into decreasing waiting lists, and loosening up some of the more laggy servers, last I heard these could both be problematical at times, that, I think, would be a great place to start, using the money to improve the online experience for those that already play.

I've never had a problem with lag outside of the week or so after an enormous content patch on a medium population (30,000) unless it was my connection that was the problem. And waiting lists don't happen unless the server is full to capacity, but then it's your fault for rolling a character there.
They also offer free character transfers to new servers, and when crowing is a serious problem they offer free transfers from the large ones.

[Spicious]

Back then at 800x600 resolution, as I have said twice already, a huge something-or-other would take up most of the screen, and lots of them would cause serious framerate issues with the technology of the time. I have no idea what you mean by "tiny dozen zerg suddenly turning into a thousand super creatures," but if you are referring to the way the Zerg build everything organically by mutation then that's an extremely petty criticism.

And, by the way, FS2 came out in 1999. And considering it was developed in a year, versus SC's three (four?) year development cycle, the one year difference between release means a four year difference from when development on SC started... which means a four year graphics gap. But aside from that, the RTS genre didn't enter the third dimension to stay until well into the 21st century, and with good reason There's a big difference between the amount of stuff onscreen in FreeSpace and any RTS.
But that's comparing apples to oranges. That would be like saying "Sim City sucks because you can't see the people as clearly as you can in The Sims!" The gameplay depended on having huge ships like the Sathanas. In StarCraft having carriers twice as large as they are would impair the gameplay.

I take it you've never heard of Total Annihilation.

[Leeko]

Heh. TA was my favorite RTS before I discovered C&C and SC. But...

...the RTS genre didn't enter the third dimension to stay...

I edited that bit in specifically recalling TA.
Side note, SupCom doesn't do it justice in my opinion. Oh how I miss the krogoth... Lost my TA discs quite some time ago, and I've never bothered to pirate it. Of course, that's assuming it works on Vista. Oh how I miss XP, too... MechWarrior 2 worked on XP sometimes.

[Flipside]

Bloodeagle, the thing is, it's not so much about the quality of service as the price people were willing to pay, in many ways I am in awe of Blizzard, I could fall down and worship their marketing department, because they all must have metaphorical balls the size of honeydew melons and coated in Kevlar You can do little but admire that companies ability to make money.

[Leeko]

And now, back on topic!

The same goes for EA, I'm sure there are plenty of tween girls out there who are willing to open their wallets for TS2 stuff packs. They wouldn't have kept on making them if there wasn't a market.

[Commander Zane]

Well since The Sims 3 is out, if they released an all-in-one expansion set I'd buy it.

[Flipside]

Well, in my experience, the main Demographic for Sims 2 is actually more the young-middle aged couple, where male partner gets moaned at for spending too much time in front of the computer, and devises a cunning plan of, rather than spending less time in front of the computer, buying a game that his partner can share in.

Particularly in the case of couples that haven't started a family yet, the financial hit every few months isn't too much damage.

[Leeko]

Expansions are one thing, but there's no excuse for stuff packs. Expansions add new gameplay mechanics, and in the days of TS1 they also added appropriately themed furniture and better quality items. Stuff packs are just themed items - not better quality, nothing with a new use. Expansions are worth the $30... usually. See my earlier post about Free Time and Apartment Life.

We'll see what EA does with The Sims 3. Honestly, I think it's looking bleak with Will Wright out of the picture. The visionary is gone, his vision long dead.

[BloodEagle]

I could fall down and worship their marketing department, because they all must have metaphorical balls the size of honeydew melons[...,] coated in Kevlar

That's never going to leave my mind, now. I hope you're happy.