There is a rather large difference between an online tournament and an offline tournament.  Just ask Blizzard, they use a special version of WoW that is LAN enabled for their World Championship and I believe a similar method is in place for Starcraft II.  Having to run everything through Battle.net automatically killed 90% of the Starcraft Tournaments, because they were played at major LAN events.  We're not talking about Corporate Sponsored events that are funded, we're talking about a small 50 man LAN in some community hall that is organised for fun.  Yes, online Tournaments are entirely capable and on a small scale... as long as you play on Battle.net.  Starcraft succeeded in becoming the poster child for eSports because it was able to played at LANs before eSports even had a name.  That's my point.



Please point out where I said no one should be allowed to charge for a game, or an application?  Where did I say no one can charge money for access to software?  Nowhere.  If you're going to use a straw man argument, please at least remain semi-focused.

Providing an avenue for players to charge money for access to their custom maps will ensure that any major mods will be pay-to-play.  If Icefrog could have charged a small fee for access to DotA legally, do you think he would've?  He probably would've after tournaments sprung up at the very least. 
My point is that custom content ensures a game's long term survival (Money maps in Starcraft, for example) while the lack of that content can be the death of a game (Demigod).  I'm not saying Starcraft II is going to die off, I'm sure it'll be around for quite a while, what I am saying is that pay-to-play for fan made content isn't going to provoke creativity.  Considering multi-player focused gamers will be buying two more titles at least, it seems Activision's 'charge for everything' mentality is leaking through to set-up what is essentially a micro-transaction system for maps.

Please show me where I can legally charge money for an Elemental mod, or set up a monthly fee for a mod for Oblivion?  Please show me where Stardock's user control panel allows me to create a GalCiv II mod and charge for it?

Please take a moment to read, and understand, my posts before you reply.

cynical_p - i provided some feedback over here on my experience with the game if you are interested.  Overall, I'm really impressed.  http://forums.demigodthegame.com/382335/page/43 - starting at reply 1068

 

Bioware is a developer, not a game. Which of their games are you referring to? I remember having a lot of issues with Knights of the Old Republic, and end up having to get a cracked .exe just for it to start. Although to be fair, this was only in the last year or so, and the issues could be blamed on the incompatibilities of time. But it's still bs, and plenty others seem to manage just fine.

almost used up my guest pass but so far its been fun as hell though its not a totally revolutionary game though the multilayer is rather great!

Definitely a style thing. I find the opposite... or not, depending on my mood.

Being at that lower level with control over everything really puts the onus on the player. Win or lose, there's nothing that wasn't under your control so you were most likely just outplayed. In some games where you don't have the same degree of micromanagement, it starts to feel like you're just sort of directing stuff. Oh my guys beat his guys, but they didn't much need me to do it.

Irrelevant. Show me data that says running through battle.net kills "90%" of tournaments. Also, you should get some accurate information. "Small scale" for online tournaments? There was a Europe vs Asia tournament that ran for 3 consecutive weekends, definitely small scale right? And, to further show that you don't know what you're talking about:

http://www.geekosystem.com/star-craft-2-lan-support/

But wait, let me guess, your next argument is "Oh but it should be at launch! How dare they not include it and only *now* think about doing it!" Right?

You're the one using a straw man argument. You complained about Blizzard providing a platform for users to sell their created works with approval. I pointed out that it exists everywhere, and that you're a hypocrite for complaining about Blizzard's method, but not everyone else's. That still stands. Not to mention you're flat out wrong. The ability for people to make some money from high-level mods *encourages* people to make high-level mods, not discourages.

How is this relevant? I showed you Stardock's platform - Wincustomize.com. Or are you saying now that it's okay for users to sell their desktop skins after months of work with Stardock's tools through Wincustomize, but not okay for users to sell their mods after months of work with Blizzard's tools through battle.net? Seems to me the difference is you don't really care for desktop customization much so you don't care if people charge for them or not (and probably "support" it 'cause they put effort into it, right?) but as soon as the same comes up with a mod that takes at least as much effort, it's suddenly Very Bad? Please.

Let's compare our APMs everybody!

Yea, everything he complains about is a consciousness choice to keep Starcraft 2 game play similar to the original.

Blizzard said they implemented a cover system to try it out during alpha and it really took away from the back and forth action that makes SC exciting.

Also, position is incredibly important, just not in a sense forced by the engine. Facing a Terran mech player is won and lost on position(by both sides). People call mech OP because they don't understand how important position is.

If Ubisoft were a book publisher, they'd be saying "You have to check in with us every time you turn a page."  If Blizzard were a book publisher, they'd be saying, "You have to check in with us every time you take the book off the shelf."  It's the exact same issue, merely a question of degree.

Sorry, I didn't word my previous post correctly.  I wasn't saying that only small scale tournaments would be possible, I was attempting to say that small scale tournaments are possible over Battle.net as well as large scale funded tournaments.  The issue comes with the fact that needing internet access to have a little 8 man to 32 man tournament, the kind that would take place over a day at a LAN, makes things needlessly complicated, and removes the 'Tournament' conditions. 
Keep in mind that Starcraft is one of the most played LAN games of all time.  Honestly, take a look at the Program for any LAN event, and you'll most likely see Starcraft on there.  Most fan organised events, these are the zero funding, grass roots 'Tournaments' do not have internet access.  Attempting to organise such an event is now far more complicated than just 'show up, bring PC' and issues like lag come into play, when in a tournament situation there should never be lag of any kind.  All Stacraft II tournaments - not meet online events, I mean actual, face to face, real life tournaments - will require Blizzard approval to have the Starcraft II LAN edition present.


The LAN support will most likely still require an open internet connection to authenticate the players involved.  The game is literally hard coded to remove offline support - hence why the game's custom maps are not available to pirates.  Patching in true LAN support is highly unlikely as it would provide the necessary modifications for a private multiplayer community to spring up, much like in Modern Warfare 2 and World of Warcraft.
As for whether or not such things should have been included at retail, I'll let the facts speak for themselves.  Stacraft is the
eSport title.  It is played around the world at major LAN Tournament events every month.  It has stayed relevant due to it's multiplayer component's Tournamanets, made possibly thanks entirely to LAN support.  Starcraft II, and Battle.net 2.0 by extension, was designed to promote a competitive multiplayer environment from the ground up.  Starcraft II's budget exceeded US$100,000,000.00, the only other game to do so is Grand Theft Auto IV, and it's development time stretched to a massive 7 full years of active development.  The game received a large scale, multiplayer only BETA, and places were so sought after that registration keys to the BETA were sold on eBay for US$500.00.  The retail game is sold for US$60.00 in America and US$80.00 is most other regions.
Do you think built in clan support, tournament support and LAN play at retail is asking too much given that the previous title in the series was released with one of those three missing elements some 11 years ago?


As I pointed out, custom maps are not applications or games.  They are custom maps at the least, mods at the best.  As I asked, please show me somewhere else where I can make a map for a Real Time Strategy game - not an application, not third party software, but a simple map - or a modification for any other game and have been provided by the developers of that game with a legal avenue for charging for access to it?

Paying map makers to make professional level maps is what would be called a high risk business venture in terms of the probability of achieving a large profit margin.  Instead of having their own people make maps to generate a steady stream of income, Blizzard have out-sourced this element to the community.  Why pay people to make maps to, in turn, generate a profit when you can get people to do it for free and still make a sizeable profit?  If I am multiplayer focused and wish to keep up with the communtiy, I'll have to purchase that content.  This forces the hands of the players who wish to participate in the community to pay for each new map that enters the rotation.

As for the charging of fan made content being a catalyst for greater quality of said content, has the lack of such incentives been a catalyst for poor content in the past?  Will suddenly adding price tags to the 'good' content make that content better?  From a simple 'Pros and Cons' stand point, it'll actually have the opposite effect.  What was 'good' will now be mrely 'ok' because it's no longer a free addon to expand your game, and what was merely 'meh' will become 'ok' simply because it's free.


You showed a platform that allows people to charge for the large scale modification of the visual presentation for the platform on which the user operates their computer, of which the end purchase result is based on how much a person likes the visual theme.
You then compared that to a custom map for a video game.  Ignoring the obvious differences between the two, I said please show me another company that allows users to legally charge for maps or mods for a video game.  Sorry, I meant to say the good mods.  The bad stuff, they can have that shit for free.  Is the effort someone will pour into what Blizzard considers a 'bad' map is quite different from the effort put into a map or mod that Blizzard knows will make them money?  No, so don't try to take the high road.  A simple map for Starcraft II that was laboured over by a user for weeks, determining choke points and gameplay flow?  Pfft, one of a million, throw to the crowd for free.  A simple map that uses basic scripts to create a Last Man Standing variation that was completed in a day?  Might attract some fans, better charge for it to make sure they make something off of it.  Quality doesn't enter the picture: it's all about bankability, and that doesn't bode well for the community at large.

Do I like that custom maps can now be charged for, when it's those same custom maps that allow multiplayer titles to remain as viable as it has over the years?  No, and I won't dress it up.  I believe fan made content for games should always be free.  Would DotA or Counter-Strike be as popular today if the mods cost money to play?  Instead of just jumping in and trying it, it's now a calculated risk on the part of the end user.  This is not the same as constructed software like Ventrilo or Hamachi or iPhone Apps, or making an entirely new game, so please don't try that argument again.  Making a Mod for Starcraft II takes effort, sure, however this isn't hard coding an entire graphics engine and game that requires specalised knowledge.  Activision Blizzard has seen how popular a mod can be.  Instead of relying on that popularity to sell copies of their game, they've decided that since Starcraft II is going to drive it's own sales, charging for the 'good' Mods as they're released is far more profitable.  Keeping the content free keeps the community open and encourages community interaction, growth and natural evolution.  Then again, since the community is segmented to the point of being restricted to geographical forums, the removal of chat channels, the removal of cross region play (SEA is an exception due to the backlash experienced received from AU and NZ players), the restriction of user profiles and the restriction of User Made Content to the region it was made in (obviously for legal reasons and enforcing regional pricing) perhaps a segmented, stagnated community is what Blizzard is hoping for - makes over priced expansion packs seem more attractive.

Depends enterily about how quality the map is.

 

I mean, what if an author wrote a book with a set of free pens? Is his work suddenly worthless?

 

Personally though, I don't really need to buy maps since im not korean.

You know, Blizzard had the golden opportunity here to end the threat of North Korea nuking everyone and they didn't take it. All they would have had to do was "accidentally" send all of South Korea's copies of SC 2 to North Korea, then tell the South Koreans that if they wanted their copies of SC 2 they'd have to kill the North Koreans to get them. It would take about 48 hours for the South Koreans to Zerg Rush the North and take it over...LoL.