worst idea for starcraft2

How is it possible that you still don't understand what I meant about inflation? How? Explain it to me, please! It just doesn't make sense how you can still be lost. I'll try this one more time. Think of the 80's. I once saw a chart that said a 200$ Nintedo back in 1986 would equal about 400$ today meaning the Nintendo was one of the most expensive consoles of all time despite only costing 200$. Likewise, 50$ in 1998 is the equivalent of about 75$ of our money today. It isn't worth as much as it was back in 1998. You're taking this backwards and think I'm saying the opposite. Money doesn't increase in value or else we would be talking cents instead of dollars when buying games since 50$ in 1913 would equal $1,072.85 today. If you STILL don't understand than just take what you DO understand and reverse it because as far as this conversation goes your understanding is backwards. In summary, StarCraft 2 in proportion to content is much, much, much, much cheaper than StarCraft. So, if both game's complete sets cost 100$ then StarCraft 2 would be the better deal. Now, in actuality, StarCraft 2 is about 20$-30$ more but still the better deal as far as content goes.

The rest of your post is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. They didn't turn one game's worth of content and put it into three games, they are making three games that need to be packaged as three games due to content and allowing it to grow to be what it should be. You, obviously, want the game to be constricted to the same limits as was placed in the late 90's which is horribly outdated and would severely gimp the game. Just because you're used to having a game with all three races put in the single-player campaign from the first product doesn't mean anything. Nothing you say makes sense so I'm not even going to try to understand what you're saying any further. So, once you finally understand what I'm saying about inflation then I'm done with you.

 

The worst thing Blizzard can possibly do:

Canceling StarCraft II.

 

Ok, I finally understood what you mean, I didnt the first time, BECAUSE I DIDNT THINK YOU WERE SO ****IN STUPID

Do you know the difference between 'money' and 'commodity'? Money is a commodity too but inflation does not have the same effect on OBJECTIVE COMMODITY, as your money HAS NO OBJECTIVE COMMODITY (Gold or Silver) BEHIND IT!!!

This means that over time, MONEY LOSES ITS VALUE

75 dollars today are worth 50 dollars 10 years ago. It lost some of its value.

Commodity on the other hand, with inflation, IT GAINS VALUE

You paid 50$ for it 10 years ago, now you have to pay 75$. It became more expensive.

Do you understand this??

Your nintendo only costs 200$ but you would have to pay 400$ for the same nintendo today, not 200, IF:

TychusFindlay, you are an idiot.

If starcraft cost 50$ ten years ago, it would cost the same price a normal game costs today, be it 50, or 60, because value of a game is artificially regulated. I bought starcraft + brood war for 10 E a couple of years ago. When it was first released it cost more. Inflation does not apply to regulated value. Even if it did, then starcraft 2 would cost three times as much as 75$ starcraft, 225$, right now!

Your starcraft 2 will cost 150$ today, just like it would have cost 150$ ten years ago, three times as much no matter the time.

If you dont understand this, you are retarded.

 

*facepalm*

You still don't understand so I'm done with you. It's a waste of time. Now, you're arguing the same thing I was saying but all the while throwing insults at me as if I wasn't saying the same thing. I can't believe you still don't know what I'm saying. I know games stay at a set value because 50$ is about the maximum the masses will pay without the overall amount of copies being sold decreasing.. but I said IF

IF

IF

IF

IF

If StarCraft was released today and still maintained the same cost proportion (i.e. the money held the same value) as it had in 1998 it would cost more due to inflation.

If StarCraft was released today and maintained the same value as in 1998 it would cost more.
If StarCraft was released today and same value as in 1998 it would cost more.
if StarCraft was today same value as in 1998 it would cost more.
If StarCraft today it would cost more.
Starcraft cost more.

UNDERSTAND????

Exactly what I said. Paying a company 50$ today isn't the same as paying them 50$ ten years ago.

Exactly what I said. The money lost some of its value so you have to pay more BUT StarCraft 2 still isn't proportionally more expensive.. therefore, you get more bang for your buck BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL PAYING 50$.

Exactly what I said. I said Nintendo, proportionally, is one of the most expensive consoles, i.e. the Wii is a much better deal because it costs 250$ instead of 400$. Same thing with StarCraft and StarCraft 2. in what you said replace Nintendo with StarCraft and "same nintendo today" replace with StarCraft 2.

I said "if". DUURR DURR DURRRRRRR!!!! I'm sure you know what if means. So, basically, now you admit that a 100$ game today is less profit for developers than 100$ in 1998 and giving a company 100$ is less money proportionally than 10 years ago.

No kidding. I think you need to reread what I said especially the IFIFIFIFIFIFIFIFIFIFIF part. It's so obvious that games are still being sold for 50$ despite the loss of value in money that I'm surprised you honestly think that's what I was saying.

You're almost to the point of understanding.. DON'T STOP!!! KEEP GOING!!! StarCraft 2 will cost 150$ BUUUUTTT 150$ isn't worth as much as it was in 1998 ... Understand? Therefore, in actuality, you are paying less than you did 10 years ago because 150$ isn't worth as much as it was then.

You just called yourself an idiotic retard. Good job!

I'm stupid for saying the exact same thing you're saying? Okay. Reread what I said and be careful to note the letters I and F. Then proceed to laugh at yourself hysterically. I'm done. Don't bother replying.

 

*watches the war and ignores it* it's been said, but as always, the trilogy. to sum it all up, from what everyone said, it's just blizz's evil coming free. they're turning into the same thing as every other company, really. charging for bnet, making expansions that are just the same game in different segments, it's just blizzard being greedy. plain and simple. the way it's looking i might not get either d3 or sc2, i'm getting sick and tired of their BS excuses of why they're going to start charging, or their half assed reasoning of cutting sc2 into pieces.

 

Monetizing features you'll probably never ever use is different than 'charging for Battle.net'. Don't misquote. It's illegal, remember?

 

blablahblah.
if they are "features you'll probably never ever use ", who would pay for them?
don't generalize, dude. maybe i don't want blizzard giving unfair advantages. because if it costs money and isn't a necesity, it means it's just giving people who don't play other things (like if you could use RL money for weapons)

in all, it DEPENDS what they're charging for. tell me what they're charging for and not charging for, and i'll see if i change my mind about the money hungry behemoth that is now blizzard.

 

Changing your name or transferring your account to another server are the only confirmed POSSIBLE charges for StarCraft II's Battle.net that I know of. Everything else is still free and is paid for by ads.

 

links please? or a source, perhaaaaps?

 

I'm surprised a moderator here hasn't seen this ...

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing/

Also, these are all features that were not available in StarCraft or WarCraft III so, basically, they're giving you everything you had in the previous games but giving you the OPTION of paying for things extra on the side because it costs them money. If you're getting everything you had in previous games for the same price then why say they are greedy now but not think so for doing the same thing in the past?

 

yeah, because blizzard never changes anything they say.

like game design. or unit structure. or release dates. so, it's totally cool we can believe everything they say, maybe even years before the game is released!

 

So, you think they're greedy because you like to assume the worst? That doesn't make sense. Why not just assume StarCraft II and Diablo III are going to be trash and quit following the games because there's this "great big possibility" that Blizzard can only make terrible games from now on?

Just admit that your accusations are unfounded and you have no real quarrel with Blizzard other than your own indwelling, unrelated to Blizzard, fear for the future.

 

" Why not just assume StarCraft II and Diablo III are going to be trash and quit following the games because there's this "great big possibility" that Blizzard can only make terrible games from now on?"

okay. blizzard makes bad games *angryface*

"Just admit that your accusations are unfounded and you have no real quarrel with Blizzard other than your own indwelling, unrelated to Blizzard, fear for the future."

you're right, i'm scared of the future *emosob*

 

Blizzard id have to say when it comes to game making, their like that old legendary samurai sword maker that all the heroes go to for weapons..

Blizzard knows what there doing and in fact we still don't know how this Trilogy will work out and when it does each one will probably be like its own game so im not worried.
They already has a lot of money from wowcraft so that's another reason they don't have to rush things with SC2 and Diablo 3. I don't see people complaining about Diablo or warcraft 2 and going back to it.

 

This statement is full of win I love it! I might just sig it

 

Blizzard hasn't screwed up a game yet, besides the lore butcher thanks to the Burning Crusade, redeemed by WoTLK. But there still is: ZOMGKILLMALYGOS.

But anyways, the cost of a video game is serious ****ing business.

 

i now they haven't. they got good reps in my book because i've liked what i've played. diablo was the first game i played and i love it. i'm just saying i will be severely disappointedif they charge for bnet.

 

Not making Starcraft Broodwar 3D instead of Starcraft2

Joke byside

hard to say, I think there are a few things disturbing me, but not anything mayor.

 

I always get skipped...

If they decide to cancel StarCraft II, what would be your reactions?

 

How did you get skipped?