Here in Europe you get a good gaming rig that is able to run Crysis in high settings on 1680x1050 for 500 Euros. I am willing to bet its about $500 in the US too, if not less. The prices have been very low for quite some years now.

I really dont accept the cost argument anymore because its simply not valid especially with console games costing more and consoles being optional while every household should have a PC anyways (and prolly already has one and thus saving up to a few hundred bucks because you dont need to upgrade every component).

This comment was edited on Jul 4, 2009, 03:02.

Wait, what? Console game = $60. Same game on the PC with better graphics, framerate and controls = $40-50.

Not quite fair. You also have to have a larger upfront investment in your computer, upwards of a grand or so. It's come down a lot since my first "gaming" rig (386 with 4 megs of memory, a sound card, and a TURBO button!), which I believe was 3 grand, but still, a 360 is 200 bucks starting, which is 1/5 the cost of a good gaming rig. Plus, the software library for PCs is shrinking too.

The term "casual league" seems to be a contradiction in terms.

The entire point of a league is to be highly competitive. The entire point of being a casual player is that you don't want to be that competitive, you just want to play.

I'm marking a lot of this up to poor PR jargon.

I assume this is because the sales don't end up justifying the work but as a consumer the reason I don't purchase PC games is because console games are a better value.

Wait, what? Console game = $60. Same game on the PC with better graphics, framerate and controls = $40-50.

I buy and rent games all the time on the consoles...

I don't think renting a game really counts towards establishing its value because you aren't paying full price. You are paying a tiny fraction of its price. If renting wasn't an option, would you still feel console games are a better value?

Hmmm, have you really thought this one through Blizzard...? I mean if you build in league support you're letting players play against each other which we all know leads to piracy... are you sure you don't want to remove that feature too? Piracy must be prevented by all possible means after all...

Fail much at sarcasm? Blizzard's whole move is based off the fact that online games are the least susceptible to piracy.

I prefer playing on the consoles now.

From hardware compatibility to driver problems, PC was never the platform of choice for gamers who are easily frustrated. Nothing they can dish out today compares to having to flip through a book to find the password every time you want to play something, or trying to run falcon 3.0.

"Oh noes!!!1111 If people want to play on a LAN we now have to provide them with internet access instead! I'll never buy another PC Game again!!!111"
Good riddance.



This comment was edited on Jul 2, 2009, 15:26.

I can smell a subscription fee very, very soon.

NO Chance for a 2009 release. NONE.

We're hoping to have support for casual leagues, support for professional leagues, hardcore leagues.

Hmmm, have you really thought this one through Blizzard...? I mean if you build in league support you're letting players play against each other which we all know leads to piracy... are you sure you don't want to remove that feature too? Piracy must be prevented by all possible means after all...

I feel the need to clarify that I really don't care about Starcraft 2 or LAN support, but companies who feel the need to build their software specifically around features that are anti-pirate bug the shit out of me. We passed the point where these tactics don't screw over the honest crowd and now you're just fucking us over as far as possible before we just abandon the platform for games.

Is there any sign that these tactics are working? Last time I checked pc only developers are abandoning that concept as fast as possible. PC software is becoming the red headed step child of game development. I assume this is because the sales don't end up justifying the work but as a consumer the reason I don't purchase PC games is because console games are a better value. I'm going to guess that I could save myself plenty of money on those games by just pirating stuff on my PC, but I buy and rent games all the time on the consoles... I prefer playing on the consoles now. It's a step down in so many respects but I don't have to deal with petty bullshit like online activations and limited installs. And every cycle there seems to be a new cry against piracy like all these changes are going to eventually benefit us, well they are in one way, I've stopped spending money on most PC games, and focused on console gaming... If this is all a big conspiracy to get people onto consoles....congratulations! It's working like a charm!

I'm guessing there would be a lot more than one design meeting for something like battle.net Sounds like they're still quite a ways off from releasing anything.

Im pretty sure that the framework for battle.net 2.0 is already in place.

Remember that this interview was held before the NO LAN statement. That was probably one of the big things that was decided at that design meeting.

That doesn't sound very promising for a 2009 release, if they basically still have to DESIGN their new battle.net (much less build and test it.)

Creston

I can't tell you a whole lot because in reality, anything I say might be a lie. We're still working on it, and it's kind of up in the air. I kind of wish it wasn't, but it kind of is. What you saw today is not where we're going. It's a version that we have that has a lot of problems that we don't like. It was never meant to be the final version, but we're getting further and further away from that being close to the final version. We're trying to do more and more stuff.

I felt like I was reading an Onion Network News story.

Very good interview, sort of mirrors another interview from a couple of days ago but there is a lot more info in this one. Good stuff.





Now can we have the game pretty please?