Starcraft 2 may feature premium user-made maps for a price

Thank you E. You said everything my Drunk Ass couldn't.
 
Because it's their content and if someone is willing to pay, then I don't see an issue. This falls into the hands of "If you don't want it, don't buy it." Kinda the same principal on the L4D2 shit.

You're arguing over something different than I am. I'm saying Blizzard doesnt deserve money for user made content. Not whether people will or should buy it. So no, its not the same as L4D2. Valve made L4D2. They worked on all the content in it.

Yes it is. "Why does Blizzard deserve to make money off other players maps."

They are LETTING blizzard do it.

In what way does that mean blizzard deserves the money?

Blizzard isn't forcing the selling part at all. They can do the good ol' "Donation" thing like they have before....but if they chose to let Bnet be their selling medium, there is nothing wrong with that.

No shit they're not forcing it. I know the facts. Still doesnt mean blizzard deserves money for other people's work.

*EDIT* Hell, I won't be buying any maps at all...don't want to. You don't see me complaining because of this idea?

And I'm not buying Starcraft 2 at all. So what? Just because you're not paying for maps doesnt mean jack shit as to whether its ethical to make money off of user content.

^^^ Impossible to judge without more information. Hopefully it will either be a solid cut (~50%) or negotiable between the mapper and Blizzard.

I am nearly positive it wont be that high. 30% will be pushing it.

I have huge problems with what you're saying here. Some people will buy paid-for maps, and yes, the community will have a minor rift in the sense that some people will never pay for a map and thus will never play those specific maps. However it's not like they're building a wall and saying YOU EITHER PAY FOR ALL THE GOOD MAPS OR YOU PLAY ONLY SHITTY ONES MADE BY TALENTLESS 12 YEAR OLDS. The rift will be small, probably mostly unnoticeable beyond the mere sense of "oh, X map costs money so I'm not playing it."

I disagree. I've seen plenty of games where half the community plays a small handfull of good maps, while the rest of the community spread out loosely over the rest. If the maps are good enough to warrant any significant percentage of the playerbase to do the same thing despite the cost, then it will be as I said. And there is a very good chance of that. But fine, neither of us have any data to work with on this point since this is the first time its happened, so I won't say any more than I have on my thoughts about this subject.

There will be hundreds of thousands of good free maps just as there will be quality customs that you have to pay for. The fact is that the spirit of such a scene is still FREE FREE FREE. Sure, maybe for an ultra-polished DOTA or Diplo map you can throw down $2 to play it - but there will always, and I mean always be free alternatives that are 95% as good if not 100% or better. Talented mappers will always release their stuff for free. Some will sell out, others won't. The ones who do sell out will just get undercut by people willing to make the same high-quality, polished content and distribute it freely rather than demand compensation. This is why I am not bothered by this whole thing.

I remain skeptical. I don't believe that people who can make money on things they're already doing, will refuse hard cash.

Uhhhhh... what in the **** are you talking about man? Blizzard created the engine, the technology, the universe, the extremely versatile map editor, and tons of content to work with. That's quite a large step in the creation of the content. To make a Starcraft II quality map experience without any of Starcraft II is difficult and would take 1000x the work as you start from scratch to build an engine and tools and everything else needed. Sure you could argue that by purchasing the game you get free unlimited use of all of it but the fact is they have always released excellent editing tools when they are not remotely obligated to (just like our dear friends at Valve). If they want a piece of the pie in exchange for promotion and distribution, that's between them and the mapper. You don't get all bitchy at Valve for them making money off distributing GMod 10, this is no different.

All of which was paid for already by each and every person who bought the game.
































*15 minutes of thought later...*


I take it back. I'm fine with this.
 
I really don't like anything that encourages micro-transactions. I feel like, even if what Blizzard are doing isn't in of itself a really bad thing, it's only going to add to the precedents and make micro-transactions much more common.
 
I don't think Blizzard is really pushing this any more forward than Microsoft :p

But I do agree with you.
 
Yeah. I honestly think this could work alright. It is a nice idea I suppose, because it involves The Community! (Whatever that is) rather than it just coming from the top down all the time. But yeah, restating what I said, it just adds to the atmosphere of micro-transactions being okay; which I'm not cool with, guys.
 
I don't think it's a bad idea, by any means. It helps to put extra change into the map makers pocket. *Much more than than what they would get from the start*. I just don't feel the need to purchase it, because I am not a fan of the micro-transaction world either.
 
Sarcasm in response to sarcasm. THATS ORIGINAL!
 
Things such as DLC's and micro transactions are going to become even more common with future games.
It's one of the reasons why my 360 is collecting dust and it'll probably kill my interest in gaming eventually.
 
I will gladly dish out any number of dollars if it means we don't get 5 million different DOTA and tower defense variations.

And Pitz, shut the **** up and go sit in a corner.
No more ale for you.
 
yelling.jpg


WHY ARE WE YELLING?!!?
 
Back
Top