Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Farewell Blizzard! We knew thee well!

Wirdschowerdn

Ph.D. in World Saving
Patron
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
34,466
Location
Clogging the Multiverse with a Crowbar
Darth Roxor said:
I made this silly observation some time ago that Morgoth should get that particular, bright-red tag with a few exclamation marks.
Go on, I don't care. If the Nazi Codex feels better for distributing Dumbfuck titles just for disagreeing...
 

vrok

Liturgist
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
738
Speculating on the total cost of Starcraft 2 and how Battle.net 2.0 will be monetized is futile. This thread fails.

And you get to buy Starcraft 2 three times…
And you got to buy Starcraft 1 twice... Coincidentally Brood War made the game more than twice as good.
 

poocolator

Erudite
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
7,948
Location
The Order of Discalced Codexian Convulsionists
DL each of the three games and play them offline. Or buy one legitimately and play it online? save $100? It depends if you're a single-player campaign buff and absoultely need to play through terran/zerg/protoss campaigns, or if you're a multiplayer kind of guy.
 

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
13,999
Location
Platypus Planet
denizsi said:
DriacKin said:
poocolator said:
Starcraft 2 @ $100+
:inclineofpiracy:

How the hell will piracy help play a game that's primarily meant to be played online?

So naive. There are plenty of cheap BNet knock-offs. There are even pirate WOW servers with hundreds of players. Some private even.

IcCup is pretty good for StarCraft, I find.
 

DriacKin

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
2,588
Location
Inanescape
poocolator said:
It's not like they're going to abandon single-player campaigns any time soon... so how is it meant to be "primarily played online"?

Well, this thread was about the potential monthly subscriptions charges for BNet.
Pirating the game won't solve them at all.
 

BLOBERT

FUCKING SLAYINGN IT BROS
Patron
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
4,236
Location
BRO
Codex 2012
STRACRFT TOO IS JUST ANOTHER PEECE OF SHIT CONSOLETARD REJECT FOR PEOPLE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO PLAY REAL STRATEGY GAMES WHY THE FUCK DO YOU PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THIS SHIT!!!!
 

Scruffy

Ex-janitor
Patron
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
18,150
Codex 2012 Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014
Morgoth said:
Darth Roxor said:
I made this silly observation some time ago that Morgoth should get that particular, bright-red tag with a few exclamation marks.
Go on, I don't care. If the Nazi Codex feels better for distributing Dumbfuck titles just for disagreeing...

you can disagree allright, no one is actually pissed for that.

the thing is: blizzard used to make great games, and sell them for a reasonable price.
if that wasn't the case, they wouldn't be alive today.

now tell me, was it easier to survive selling videogames when the market was still partially virgin and the user base was limited, or is it easier to sell games today, with a LARGELY wider user base and a status, for the game industry, close to that of the movie industry? (i mean, big budgets, big hype, etc).

of course it's easier today, the proof is that mediocre games still make a revenue, hell, even pure utter shit as fallout3 managed to sell ONLY based on hype and on moronic fanbase.

and that's why you're a dumbfuck
because you WANT to spend more for less quality, because you believe the hype and because you feed a distorted market that doesn't sell you products but hype.


dumbfuck.
 

Dickweed

Educated
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
141
This entire thread is retarded, since they're not going to charge for subscription fees. They stated they wouldn't in an interview last October:
Here's the way I would put it. We're definitely not looking at turning Diablo into a subscription based game. It's clearly not an MMO, so it's not appropriate to do a business model like that. The way we approach all of our games now, is we come up with what we think is a great game, and then we wrap the appropriate business model around it. If that's just a box price, then that's that.

With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra.
So no worries, you won't have to pay subscription fees. You'll probably just have to pay for doing nearly anything involving the game and the characters you have in it outside of just playing it BUT THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE I LIKE BLIZZARD GAMES THEREFORE IT IS OKAY FOR THEM TO TREAT THEIR CUSTOMERS LIKE SHIT.
 

peak

Scholar
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
134
Location
Meshuggah City
I'd pay for the ability to stream live games from korean leagues directly from Battle.net.

What would YOU pay for?

dr5wuh.jpg
 

Shannow

Waster of Time
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,386
Location
Finnegan's Wake
MetalCraze said:
Azrael the cat said:
Machines that could play HL2 no problem couldn't operate once you stepped out of the apartment in VTM:BL. I remember fanmade patches being released to REMOVE the sky, in a vain attempt to make the game run on the recommended specs.

I've completed VtmB on Athlon XP 1.8 GHz, 512 MBs RAM and Radeon 9000 Pro 64 Mbs - pretty much specs of 2002. Now I don't know what were those recommended specs but you needed to have a really shitty PC to not be able to play VtmB. Sure it was laggy but far from unplayable - now gamebreaking bugs is another thing.
Not a matter of system, as so often with computers. I played it with an Athlon 2600+, Radeon 9800 pro and it was playable. After the graffix card smoked I bought a Radeon 9600 with more memory. When I tried to replay Bloodlines it was so sluggish and unresponsive that I gave up. I tried to replay again with my current system dual core 2 e6600, 8800 GTS and it was again sluggish and only playable after some nonsense tweaks. In the end it didn't run much better than on my first system although my current sys is far more powerful.
 

Dickweed

Educated
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
141
Emotional Vampire said:
BLIZZARD SAID IT'S TRUE SO DON'T ARGUE
Considering that Activision Blizzard's president and CEO is willing to say that games would be more expensive if it were up to him, I don't think that they're really the sort of company that lies about these things. More like they just say how it is, and if it sucks then their customers take it up the ass anyways BECAUSE THEIR GAMES ARE SO POLISHED THEY DESERVE THE RIGHT TO JAM THEIR BIG SLOPPY DICKS UP OUR ASSES. Also, it makes more sense to assume that them saying they won't charge a monthly fee for it means that they won't charge a monthly fee for it than to assume that it means that they're just lying about it because they felt like it.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
6,927
Dickweed said:
Emotional Vampire said:
BLIZZARD SAID IT'S TRUE SO DON'T ARGUE
Considering that Activision Blizzard's president and CEO is willing to say that games would be more expensive if it were up to him, I don't think that they're really the sort of company that lies about these things. More like they just say how it is, and if it sucks then their customers take it up the ass anyways BECAUSE THEIR GAMES ARE SO POLISHED THEY DESERVE THE RIGHT TO JAM THEIR BIG SLOPPY DICKS UP OUR ASSES. Also, it makes more sense to assume that them saying they won't charge a monthly fee for it means that they won't charge a monthly fee for it than to assume that it means that they're just lying about it because they felt like it.

u mad
 

Carceri

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
1,404
Location
Transylvania
Shannow said:
Not a matter of system, as so often with computers. I played it with an Athlon 2600+, Radeon 9800 pro and it was playable. After the graffix card smoked I bought a Radeon 9600 with more memory. When I tried to replay Bloodlines it was so sluggish and unresponsive that I gave up.

Hmm and for me it ran decently with a Radeon 9600 on a Athlon 3000+. It had some minor laggy moments, but nothing serious as to make it unplayable. The strange part about those laggy moments is that it happened in the same locations for no reason apparently, for example: a narrow corridor with no one there and no difficult textures to render. I had no problems whatsoever in areas with lots of monsters or npcs.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom