hi everybody

I'm doing a research paper on video game violence.i just need some answers to these questions.

1. are PC only games in general are more violent than console games?

2. what percentage of PC gamers are under the age of 16

3. do you think violent video games should be sold to minors? why or why not

anything else on the topic would be greatly appreciated.

purpleraine

1. I wouldn't say that PC only games as a whole are more violent than console games.

2. I would say that there are a lot of PC gamers under the age of 16 but the PC probably attracts far more adults than consoles.

3. I think all medias have a lot of violence so it is up to the parents to decide what is right for their kids. Some kids can handle it while others cannot. Although, I've been playing the "M" games since the younger days and I turned out alright ;)

No you're not forced to buy them, if you're content with playing vs. noobs while anyone important is off playing with expansion units. In that case, single-player AI is more challenging.F1_2004

I have the ultimate solution for you! Since you're thinking of not even buying it or what not, why don't you just play the other games you were planning on playing then when Starcraft 2: legacy of void comes out you just buy that version and play it. That way you don't support what you feel is wrong and get to play Starcraft 2 for a price you feel is fair.

Personally for me, I pay for the content I get so I will have no issue paying for Starcraft 2 and its expansions if I feel they're good when I get them.

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

Why are you assuming that they'll be full-priced?fatshodan

They're definitely full-sized games.Rob Pardo

I'm not assuming anything right now, but if they're treating them as full games, it's fair to assume they're looking at a full game pricing model.

If Blizzard is releasing three full priced products, then they are essentially offering, at least based on what we know so far, a full priced game and two full priced expansions padded out with filler that most RTS players don't actually care about.

It's great saying that there's these huge campaigns, and some people will love them, but most RTS fans don't care about the campaigns, they care about the multiplayer. So Blizzard is getting people to pay extra for something they don't want, just so they can get what they do want. And Blizzard knows its fanbase is large enough, and zealous enough, that they will pay whatever it costs to get those few extra multiplayer units.

Btw, that last paragraph describes the model of pretty much every RTS to date: original game then expansion with a new campErlkoenig

Yeah, and those expansions are priced accordingly (although the standard with RTS expansions in recent years has been to add new armies, too, not just new units). They aren't marketed as 'full games'. Even the standalone Dawn of War expansion, which featured an expansive campaign and two new armies - as well as the usual assortment of army enhancements for the existing (five) armies - was sold at the standard expansion price. They didn't try and trick their ravenous fans into thinking it was a whole new game.

As you imply, we shouldn't assume any kind of pricing model right now, but Blizzard is clearly trying to convince people that these are three separate games, not a game and two expansions. The obvious reason to do so is to quash the inevitable outcry about overpricing by making people think they're getting what they're paying for - even though most people won't actually want what they're paying for.

So the only thing Blizzard is doing is changing the campaign modelErlkoenig

Only if the latter parts of the 'trilogy' are priced accordingly.

If Blizzard wants to charge full price for people wanting to play these extra campaigns, that's fine by me, but they should not force the multiplayer gamers to buy these full priced games just for a few extra units. Let the campaigners enjoy their full priced campaigns and let the multiplayerers buy one of the three and get a fully featured multiplayer experience.

Again, if they're expansion prices, that's fine. But why are they trying to convince us they're full games? Why not treat them as expansions right from the start?

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=11226742562&sid=3000

They are though. This is the official FAQ and it clearly says they are expansions.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/13/world-of-warcraft-game-director-on-new-mmo-and-console-games/

It sounds like it could be coming to consoles. I don't want to make any assumptions but personally I wouldn't like this one bit :(

I think Blizzard is shooting to make one billion dollars in a year (or over a 12-month period). Wouldnt that make them the first dev to do so?

Lets see we got:

The WoW expansion coming out. Thats like 10 million copies sold, easily, over a couple months

Then we got Starcraft 2...thats gonna be about 20 million copies sold

Then Diablo 3...lets say thats another 20 million copies sold.

Then factor in the money made off of subscriptions from WoW, and the microtransactions from Diablo 3 (think Hellgate: London), and Blizzard just might pull it off.

mrbojangles25

Theres no microtransactions in Diablo 3 but they could pull it off who knows..I just want to play the games :D

That changes everything, I honestly thought they were going to pull a Hellgate London. :|chrisrooR

Yeah, it never made sense to me since Rob Pardo has never supported microtransactions of that sort and he is the executive producer