Ok so you're against all forms of DLC, you obviously have a bias so how about you don't sit there and judge the rest of us as greedy humans who will obviously not use money to our advantage in order to make our creations better.
Steam did not prove jack, just because some modders decided to be assholes does not mean all of them did. I'm sure you didn't even take the time to notice that a great majority of the mods offered in the Skyrim mod fiasco were "pay what you want" rather being put behind a paywall.
Buying DLC, IMO, is like buying a drink, like soda or wine. Some are best, some are worst, some aren't even worth it. I'm not lying when I say I'm against overcharging prices for mere unit skins/models/animations or this or that nostalgic item companies know this'll explore people's judgement. But that's not to say ALL DLCs are bad, it's that the good ones are just too rare to find.
An example of a good DLC is 'Cold Cold Heart', a Batman Arkham Origins DLC that feels more like an expansion. That's because it offers a new explorable area, new gadgets and there's even a solid story to accompany it, centered around a great Batman antagonist. Another good DLC, so to call it, is 'Shades of Darkness' for HoMM VI, which adds a new faction and story as well as other features. These both examples are the type where we get more than what we paid for, and thus they should be valued.
The reason because DLCs are impopular is because of the exploitation EA, CA, and other companies are doing, where, in their stand, how easy it is to make a quick buck is more important than the content itself.
I haven't paid for DLCs yet, but as Delta said, most of them are useless. I wouldn't buy card packs in Hearthstone or skins in Heroes because those add nothing to my experience in those games. Yes buying card packs greatly improve your chances of having good cards, but you should still be able to get them for free. Missions for SC2 are a whole different deal in my opinion, this Nova campaign will have 9 missions (about the same as each of BW's campaigns) so if they are priced accordingly I will pay for them. Do we know if they will charge for other things they announced, like unit skins and voice sets? If they do, I believe these will be overpriced as hell (having Heroes as the example).
I feel I can't have a solid opinion about community-made content, we discussed it several times before, but we still don't know how it will work. Even if we did, The changes it will bring to SC2's modding scene will depend on us, our decisions around it.
By the very nature of what you're saying, it literally applies to nobody, as all of us have been making stuff for free with no cash incentives. The only thing that suddenly introducing money into the mix would do is allow for more dedicated development time, custom assets etc.
Please don't go around presuming to know how every persons personality/mind works. Greed is a choice and is not "human nature" as say something like "sex" would be human nature.
And by the very nature of how you are responding I get the feeling my statement rang true for you.
Besides, Ive heard the statement "I dont create mods anymore for SC2 because I dont really get anything out of it" in relation to money and modding on this forum time and time again, so it actually applies to quite a few people.
And by the very nature of how you are responding I get the feeling my statement rang true for you.
Besides, Ive heard the statement "I dont create mods anymore for SC2 because I dont really get anything out of it" in relation to money and modding on this forum time and time again, so it actually applies to quite a few people.
So I am not allowed to criticize you essentially judging everyone as "greedy" without then being labelled greedy myself? How is that in anyway logical? Perhaps you should consider that fact that I may simply be defending against stereotypes/labels that are extremely detrimental to progress, such as what you said.
I don't doubt that it may apply to some, but it does not apply to all. The point is that when the time comes, those who are greedy will/should be cast out and NOT supported. Those that offer a good amount of fun content for a reasonable/low price should be supported and are not greedy.
It is unbelievable to me that modders get shit for this when nobody says jack about youtubers, e-sports players and streamers getting paid. Am I saying they do it for the money? No, but what I am saying is that when they do get offered money people don't suddenly backlash against them for no damn reason and classify them as greedy.
Currently, money can be made via donations and semi purchased content (for example, -Mafia-) and that doesn't seem to motivate people very much.
Anyway, what would successful paid content look like? Not sure there's any situation I think would be worth the hassle. It's a nice thought from Blizzard, but it would be so much more applicable and realistic to just add in game donating, like as a tab under Reviews. And if they really want us to be able to sell content, add a function that'll return how many dollars a player has donated.
Selecting a few key developers/only having new games contain paid content/having professionals make games on an engine that's too complicated for new people and too limited for professionals... It's just seems so impractical.
I think some of you have a misunderstanding here of what Blizzard's intentions of the paid arcade content are. Most of the time when they have mentioned it they have paired it with comparison to Xbox Live Arcade and the App Store. Initially (years ago) they also had said a REQUIREMENT of being paid arcade content would be to have mostly entirely new art. From this perspective it seems as if they want to be an alternative to Unity and Steam, a platform for retail quality indie games (and content) using the Arcade.
Right now 2 good examples of this would be Carbot and Starcraft Universe, those 2 fit perfectly within the scope of what I feel they'd easily allow to be paid content (or at least in the future have updates that are paid).
I have a friend who runs a small company making mobile games as well as small Steam games. For years he's wanted to do an RTS but no engine exists to allow for one to easily be made (I am talking rpg-maker level of ease). If suddenly the Arcade became a realistic option, he could take the reasonable sized budgets he has doing mobile games...and do a decently scope RTS. Right now there are very few classic RTSs are released, due to the lack of a (fairly) easy to use, cheap engine for people to use. If Blizzard pushed the Arcade a bit more in that direction we could easily see something on par with the JRPG boom we've seen on Steam due to rpg-maker but with RTS instead.
This isn't removing anything from the existing mod scene, this just adds in a whole new class of games. The side benefit is that if existing mods wanted to release a paid version, people could rationalize taking time off work or investing money into it (again, which wouldn't have existed anyway).
The incentives for mapmaker just for under 10 projects (which will probably require full time dedication) will mean that the vast majority will still get nothing. The only system which would ever work for arcade would be a regulated cosmetic only micro transactions, alot of games live just fine out of it. Paid arcade games can be big scams and so people will be afraid to ever buy an sc2 arcade game if they got fooled once and overall will decrease the players of arcade while payed content inside the game that affects gameplay will create alot of annoyance and probably less people playing your map.
@smurfbizkit: Go
And for other companies releasing a paid rts inside an rts doesn't seem the best idea unless its revolutionary.
I don't see why this issue is controversial (I never understood the Steam controversy either).
Financial incentive means more people/better people will be making games for the Arcade.
Blizz wants more and better content creators, and is experimenting with a method of implementing this.
A lot of us wouldn't take advantage of a system for getting paid, but some of us would. Likewise, most of the consumers of the SC2 arcade wouldn't pay for stuff, but some of us would.
I think all the talk of greed and whatnot is irrelevant. I don't see any moral issues with this. Then again I'm a classical economistic libertarian fruitloop capitalist, so take my over simplistic viewpoint with a grain of salt.
@smurfbizkit: Go And for other companies releasing a paid rts inside an rts doesn't seem the best idea unless its revolutionary.
I have no idea if any of what I said could happen but it seems like it would be best-case scenario for Blizzard to become a platform for a lot of high quality new games.
Also, who says that paid arcade content will always be locked within Starcraft 2? Right now you can play arcade games without buying SC2....and hell...Heroes of the Storm is essentially a giant arcade game.
Folks, where does all this scorn come from? I for one hope that we develop many successful paid modders. The level of interest that implies from the greater Starcraft community can only be a good thing.
Plus, this stuff is hard work—it sure would be nice to reap some reward beyond downloads.
IF and ONLY IF your map is standalone and does not depend on any one elses work, would a paid map be non issue. But that's the catch.
If mod dependencies can never become paid (since making them paid would cause a host of issues) then everyone is straight up encourage never to share their work. And that right there is a problem because right now, most people waste god knows how much time making maps because they can't find nor use common libraries that would make life a hell of lot easier for them.
All assets must be custom to be considered for $$$ huh, well that makes the whole thing a moot point. Anyone able to make all their own custom assets, make a game out of that, could make a lot more $$$ out of it on Steam.
But please, continue the mud flinging contest too, it is fairly entertaining.
Can we keep the idealogies at home and keep the discussion to the arcade? There are valid concerns to have and there are reasonable countermeasures to keep things in check. I'm glad Blizzard is approaching it with caution and on a smaller scale and going from there. Sounds like a good way to approach it.
Saying the sky is falling is not constructive. Bringing up concerns and discussing implementations which remove/minimize those concerns is constructive.
concern:
it opens players to being ripped off
discussion:
A good system must have transparency about what they are getting for their dollar. Some examples might be a try before you buy approach to all paid games or a grace period where they can chose to get their money back. Also the garuntee that they will always be able to access the version they paid for. How do we do that?
concern:
none of the maps will be worth paying money for
discussion:
why is that a concern of yours if the people paying money are aware of what they are recieving? Is that our judgement call to make? Also, how can we know what the quality of product will be in a market that does not yet exist?
concern:
People will not share their content with other creators making it harder for new people
discussion:
Does that environment actually exist currently? Many maps are currently locked already, does that prevent people from learning what they need to know? Personally I think looking through other peoples work is one of the worst ways you can learn about what you want to do. Especially given the range of people here willing to directly offer answers to those with questions. Other situations with paid content still have those same resources available so why would that change?
concern:
currently existing content will be removed
discussion:
Can paid content realistically come with restrictions such as for new content ONLY and not for existing content? Maybe by ensuring that the pre-existing content remains in place alongside any new paid versions. If Blizzard owns all the conetnt and they plan to be "hands on" then surely they can make whatever descisions they chose to be in the best interest of the players.
if paid arcade becomes open to everyone with no Blizzard oversight then it becomes more tricky to prevent abuse through any fully automated system, however it is worth discussing possible solutions. And in the end Blizzard will always be able to shutdown anyone they think is abusing the system. Is any of this feasable?
concern:
modding should be done for enjoyment and not for money.
discussion:
How is this development changing the way you approach your hobby?
Probably there is a lot I've said you disagree with. Probably there is some stuff in there that even I disagree with but am playing devils advocate for. ALL of what I said would require further refinement and debate. But can we discuss the point of disagreement and isolate where the disagreement is coming from and find ways to reconcile those points.
Regurgitating the same tired old talking points again and again gets us nowhere. We sound like a bunch of politicians in a live debate repeating the same 5 second soundbites to score points with our core constituents because it's easier than discussing the actual issues.
This entire thread is hilarious. Since when has Blizzard not spoken about the arcade using a long list of mouth noises? "Err uhh, some day, when we finish with the paid content, we might allow a portion of our group to advert some of their focus to various parts of the arcade system."
To read their announcement as anything other than "We are going to continue doing exactly what we have been doing." is foolish.
@ImperialGood: Go
Ok so you're against all forms of DLC, you obviously have a bias so how about you don't sit there and judge the rest of us as greedy humans who will obviously not use money to our advantage in order to make our creations better.
Steam did not prove jack, just because some modders decided to be assholes does not mean all of them did. I'm sure you didn't even take the time to notice that a great majority of the mods offered in the Skyrim mod fiasco were "pay what you want" rather being put behind a paywall.
@Bounty_98: Go
Buying DLC, IMO, is like buying a drink, like soda or wine. Some are best, some are worst, some aren't even worth it. I'm not lying when I say I'm against overcharging prices for mere unit skins/models/animations or this or that nostalgic item companies know this'll explore people's judgement. But that's not to say ALL DLCs are bad, it's that the good ones are just too rare to find.
An example of a good DLC is 'Cold Cold Heart', a Batman Arkham Origins DLC that feels more like an expansion. That's because it offers a new explorable area, new gadgets and there's even a solid story to accompany it, centered around a great Batman antagonist. Another good DLC, so to call it, is 'Shades of Darkness' for HoMM VI, which adds a new faction and story as well as other features. These both examples are the type where we get more than what we paid for, and thus they should be valued.
The reason because DLCs are impopular is because of the exploitation EA, CA, and other companies are doing, where, in their stand, how easy it is to make a quick buck is more important than the content itself.
I haven't paid for DLCs yet, but as Delta said, most of them are useless. I wouldn't buy card packs in Hearthstone or skins in Heroes because those add nothing to my experience in those games. Yes buying card packs greatly improve your chances of having good cards, but you should still be able to get them for free. Missions for SC2 are a whole different deal in my opinion, this Nova campaign will have 9 missions (about the same as each of BW's campaigns) so if they are priced accordingly I will pay for them. Do we know if they will charge for other things they announced, like unit skins and voice sets? If they do, I believe these will be overpriced as hell (having Heroes as the example).
I feel I can't have a solid opinion about community-made content, we discussed it several times before, but we still don't know how it will work. Even if we did, The changes it will bring to SC2's modding scene will depend on us, our decisions around it.
And by the very nature of how you are responding I get the feeling my statement rang true for you.
Besides, Ive heard the statement "I dont create mods anymore for SC2 because I dont really get anything out of it" in relation to money and modding on this forum time and time again, so it actually applies to quite a few people.
So I am not allowed to criticize you essentially judging everyone as "greedy" without then being labelled greedy myself? How is that in anyway logical? Perhaps you should consider that fact that I may simply be defending against stereotypes/labels that are extremely detrimental to progress, such as what you said.
I don't doubt that it may apply to some, but it does not apply to all. The point is that when the time comes, those who are greedy will/should be cast out and NOT supported. Those that offer a good amount of fun content for a reasonable/low price should be supported and are not greedy.
It is unbelievable to me that modders get shit for this when nobody says jack about youtubers, e-sports players and streamers getting paid. Am I saying they do it for the money? No, but what I am saying is that when they do get offered money people don't suddenly backlash against them for no damn reason and classify them as greedy.
Personally I'm not ever expecting any money from SC2. Money is why I went to college.
Currently, money can be made via donations and semi purchased content (for example, -Mafia-) and that doesn't seem to motivate people very much.
Anyway, what would successful paid content look like? Not sure there's any situation I think would be worth the hassle. It's a nice thought from Blizzard, but it would be so much more applicable and realistic to just add in game donating, like as a tab under Reviews. And if they really want us to be able to sell content, add a function that'll return how many dollars a player has donated.
Selecting a few key developers/only having new games contain paid content/having professionals make games on an engine that's too complicated for new people and too limited for professionals... It's just seems so impractical.
I think some of you have a misunderstanding here of what Blizzard's intentions of the paid arcade content are. Most of the time when they have mentioned it they have paired it with comparison to Xbox Live Arcade and the App Store. Initially (years ago) they also had said a REQUIREMENT of being paid arcade content would be to have mostly entirely new art. From this perspective it seems as if they want to be an alternative to Unity and Steam, a platform for retail quality indie games (and content) using the Arcade.
Right now 2 good examples of this would be Carbot and Starcraft Universe, those 2 fit perfectly within the scope of what I feel they'd easily allow to be paid content (or at least in the future have updates that are paid).
I have a friend who runs a small company making mobile games as well as small Steam games. For years he's wanted to do an RTS but no engine exists to allow for one to easily be made (I am talking rpg-maker level of ease). If suddenly the Arcade became a realistic option, he could take the reasonable sized budgets he has doing mobile games...and do a decently scope RTS. Right now there are very few classic RTSs are released, due to the lack of a (fairly) easy to use, cheap engine for people to use. If Blizzard pushed the Arcade a bit more in that direction we could easily see something on par with the JRPG boom we've seen on Steam due to rpg-maker but with RTS instead.
This isn't removing anything from the existing mod scene, this just adds in a whole new class of games. The side benefit is that if existing mods wanted to release a paid version, people could rationalize taking time off work or investing money into it (again, which wouldn't have existed anyway).
The incentives for mapmaker just for under 10 projects (which will probably require full time dedication) will mean that the vast majority will still get nothing. The only system which would ever work for arcade would be a regulated cosmetic only micro transactions, alot of games live just fine out of it. Paid arcade games can be big scams and so people will be afraid to ever buy an sc2 arcade game if they got fooled once and overall will decrease the players of arcade while payed content inside the game that affects gameplay will create alot of annoyance and probably less people playing your map.
@smurfbizkit: Go And for other companies releasing a paid rts inside an rts doesn't seem the best idea unless its revolutionary.
I don't see why this issue is controversial (I never understood the Steam controversy either).
Financial incentive means more people/better people will be making games for the Arcade.
Blizz wants more and better content creators, and is experimenting with a method of implementing this.
A lot of us wouldn't take advantage of a system for getting paid, but some of us would. Likewise, most of the consumers of the SC2 arcade wouldn't pay for stuff, but some of us would.
I think all the talk of greed and whatnot is irrelevant. I don't see any moral issues with this. Then again I'm a classical economistic libertarian fruitloop capitalist, so take my over simplistic viewpoint with a grain of salt.
I have no idea if any of what I said could happen but it seems like it would be best-case scenario for Blizzard to become a platform for a lot of high quality new games.
Also, who says that paid arcade content will always be locked within Starcraft 2? Right now you can play arcade games without buying SC2....and hell...Heroes of the Storm is essentially a giant arcade game.
Overall I'm pretty optimistic about this.
Folks, where does all this scorn come from? I for one hope that we develop many successful paid modders. The level of interest that implies from the greater Starcraft community can only be a good thing.
Plus, this stuff is hard work—it sure would be nice to reap some reward beyond downloads.
IF and ONLY IF your map is standalone and does not depend on any one elses work, would a paid map be non issue. But that's the catch.
If mod dependencies can never become paid (since making them paid would cause a host of issues) then everyone is straight up encourage never to share their work. And that right there is a problem because right now, most people waste god knows how much time making maps because they can't find nor use common libraries that would make life a hell of lot easier for them.
All assets must be custom to be considered for $$$ huh, well that makes the whole thing a moot point. Anyone able to make all their own custom assets, make a game out of that, could make a lot more $$$ out of it on Steam.
But please, continue the mud flinging contest too, it is fairly entertaining.
Can we keep the idealogies at home and keep the discussion to the arcade? There are valid concerns to have and there are reasonable countermeasures to keep things in check. I'm glad Blizzard is approaching it with caution and on a smaller scale and going from there. Sounds like a good way to approach it.
Saying the sky is falling is not constructive. Bringing up concerns and discussing implementations which remove/minimize those concerns is constructive.
concern:
it opens players to being ripped off
discussion:
A good system must have transparency about what they are getting for their dollar. Some examples might be a try before you buy approach to all paid games or a grace period where they can chose to get their money back. Also the garuntee that they will always be able to access the version they paid for. How do we do that?
concern:
none of the maps will be worth paying money for
discussion:
why is that a concern of yours if the people paying money are aware of what they are recieving? Is that our judgement call to make? Also, how can we know what the quality of product will be in a market that does not yet exist?
concern:
People will not share their content with other creators making it harder for new people
discussion:
Does that environment actually exist currently? Many maps are currently locked already, does that prevent people from learning what they need to know? Personally I think looking through other peoples work is one of the worst ways you can learn about what you want to do. Especially given the range of people here willing to directly offer answers to those with questions. Other situations with paid content still have those same resources available so why would that change?
concern:
currently existing content will be removed
discussion:
Can paid content realistically come with restrictions such as for new content ONLY and not for existing content? Maybe by ensuring that the pre-existing content remains in place alongside any new paid versions. If Blizzard owns all the conetnt and they plan to be "hands on" then surely they can make whatever descisions they chose to be in the best interest of the players.
if paid arcade becomes open to everyone with no Blizzard oversight then it becomes more tricky to prevent abuse through any fully automated system, however it is worth discussing possible solutions. And in the end Blizzard will always be able to shutdown anyone they think is abusing the system. Is any of this feasable?
concern:
modding should be done for enjoyment and not for money.
discussion:
How is this development changing the way you approach your hobby?
Probably there is a lot I've said you disagree with. Probably there is some stuff in there that even I disagree with but am playing devils advocate for. ALL of what I said would require further refinement and debate. But can we discuss the point of disagreement and isolate where the disagreement is coming from and find ways to reconcile those points.
Regurgitating the same tired old talking points again and again gets us nowhere. We sound like a bunch of politicians in a live debate repeating the same 5 second soundbites to score points with our core constituents because it's easier than discussing the actual issues.
Let's talk like people, not like politicians.
This entire thread is hilarious. Since when has Blizzard not spoken about the arcade using a long list of mouth noises? "Err uhh, some day, when we finish with the paid content, we might allow a portion of our group to advert some of their focus to various parts of the arcade system."
To read their announcement as anything other than "We are going to continue doing exactly what we have been doing." is foolish.
Good day sir!
Skype: [email protected] Current Project: Custom Hero Arena! US: battlenet:://starcraft/map/1/263274 EU: battlenet:://starcraft/map/2/186418