Don't Expect Micro-Transactions In StarCraft II

As of right now, Blizzard Entertainment doesn't have plans to sell horse armor--or the Blizzard equivalent of it--in its eternally upcoming RTS StarCraft II. In a chat with GI.biz, company executive VP Frank Pearce said micro-transactions wouldn't immediately be a part of the game, adding that SCII doesn't seem the right kind of vehicle for micro-transaction shenanigans.  

"Not right now--no plans," he told GI.biz when asked directly about micro-transactions with World of Warcraft's optional, latest pay-for mount in mind. "But if you look at the micro-transactions for World of Warcraft as an example, as much as possible, we're not trying to do anything that impacts the gameplay experience, or affects the integrity of the game world at all."

The last downloadable mount sold for use with World of Warcraft, a ghostly winged horse called The Celestial Steed, purportedly netted Blizzard millions. It was sold via the Blizzard Store for 25 bucks a pop and really, like Pearce noted, it was little more than a cosmetic addition. Fans wanted it regardless of usefulness, though. At one point, the queue for the download pushed over 140,000 purchasers. 

"I think micro-transactions probably don't make sense for a game like StarCraft II. Unless we decide to do something much more extensive with player profiles, then maybe we'll evaluate it..." Pearce said before speaking to the game's user-made map creation marketplace, which will allow gifted creators to sell their creations to others.

I should note that Pearce made all of these comments before I told him about my wicked idea for a giant flying goblin robot that shoots lasers out of its eyes and can carry up to five medics at a time.

Good.

Never played WoW. Still... a giant robot would be nice.

Blizzard makes me sick. 

sounds good

Kind of weird to come out and say something like this when it seems relatively obvious, especially given that last quote; micro-transactions for an RTS is kind of crazy. Though I guess clarification is always welcome.

New Brad is killin' it!

More like macro transactions considering they are making you pay the equivalent of 3 games to experience all the single player.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait.... $25 for a SKIN? Really?!? WoW.
 
I'm NOT one to complain about DLC... but... that is... uh... y'know, I just don't have the words...

did anyone think there were going to be micro transactions?

it's not funny when you're trying to be funny.. 
"Mondo-transactions".. Silly fake Brad :( 
 
Anyways, it's not that amazing to hear this, but letting people know is probably a good thing in the end. 
Especially the not-so-smart gamers out there

Wow, people seem to forget that videogame companys are buisness, oh my they offer things to me that i choose to buy or not to buy?!?! Outrageous!!!!

WoW-addicts will pay 25 Dollars for a rather cosmetic addition... let´s never ever complain about people buying the MW2 mappack again.

25 bucks for a fucking mount?!?!

No plans. Yet.
 
Just look at the collector edition stuff - exclusive portraits, decals, unit skins. All prime examples of simple cosmetic things that could easily be cheap and purchasable. Not saying that's bad and they may certainly have no plans right this moment (fixing BattleNet is up there atm) but I can foresee this stuff being for sale in future.

$25 for a mount?! Man, World of Warcraft has gotten even crazier since I stopped playing.

Doesn't adding a "yet" to the end of a comment make said comment more or less meaningless?

Considering how incredibly cheap WoW is, even buying all of the existing things (4 pets and the mount) doesn't make a noticeable change in the value of the game over the couple years serious players put into it.  That $25 mount looks really good.  I think probably the best argument not to get it is that it's really common.  If you could earn it in the game, it would probably be very hard to get. 

" oh my they offer things to me that i choose to buy or not to buy?!?! Outrageous!!!! "

People honestly paid 25 dollars for a single piece of dowloadable content that was almost entirely cosmetic? Jesus christ, World of Warcraft is even more... far more pathetic than I thought. I can't believe so many people would throw away that kind of money for something so utterly worthless. Then again, they're doing pretty much the same thing simply by playing the game in the first place. So why stop wasting money at the monthly subscription fee? just keep throwing money at Blizzard, they won't mind.

No Micro-Transactions, but Frank Pearce isn't Bobby Kotick.  I guess this is one issue where we will see how autonomous Blizzard can remain. 
 
ps.  Welcome to GiantBomb, Brad.

OH MAN THATS SO FUNNY THEY USED THE HORSE ARMOR JOKE AGAIN AHAHHAHA!

" Considering how incredibly cheap WoW is, even buying all of the existing things (4 pets and the mount) doesn't make a noticeable change in the value of the game over the couple years serious players put into it.  That $25 mount looks really good.  I think probably the best argument not to get it is that it's really common.  If you could earn it in the game, it would probably be very hard to get.  "

" @Gunrock said:

" oh my they offer things to me that i choose to buy or not to buy?!?! Outrageous!!!! "

Basically this.  Nobody was forced to buy the Celestial Steed, I'm not sure how you can suddenly be pissed at Blizzard for this. Personally, I just laugh at anyone I see riding it. "

They offer a different skin for a unit already, it's not outrageous to think that Activision will push them into offering new skins for $$$.
 
Blizzard will try to resist, but in the end the will of Activision can not be undone.

" @YoungFrey said:

" Considering how incredibly cheap WoW is, even buying all of the existing things (4 pets and the mount) doesn't make a noticeable change in the value of the game over the couple years serious players put into it.  That $25 mount looks really good.  I think probably the best argument not to get it is that it's really common.  If you could earn it in the game, it would probably be very hard to get.  "

Sorry, but I don't consider £100 a year 'cheap' for any game. If I'm paying monthly, I don't see why I should continue having to pay for things like that. "

" @ajamafalous said:

" @Gunrock said:

" oh my they offer things to me that i choose to buy or not to buy?!?! Outrageous!!!! "

Basically this.  Nobody was forced to buy the Celestial Steed, I'm not sure how you can suddenly be pissed at Blizzard for this. Personally, I just laugh at anyone I see riding it. "

This exactly. WoW is a money whoring machine, no doubt about it. But anything over the monthly fee you pay, is your own choice for things that don't give you statistical upgrades in the game nor any sort of actual gameplay advantages. Am I defending Blizzard? Absolutely not, just stating the mere fact that they are offering an item for purchase that no one is required to buy, but people do so anyway. Are those wasting their money? I would say yes, but they can spend how they choose.  For the record, I don't play WoW. I did, for two years when it first came out. But I haven't touched it since, so I think that's at least 3 years off the WoW drug now. "

Assuming you enjoy playing the game, it's just a matter of money spent for time spent enjoying it.  I played WoW  for 2 hours a day on average.  That is 60 hours a month.  Or $0.25 per hour (a little more when you factor in the box purchases, but not much).  Which applied to a $60 game is 240 hours.  Are there any $60 games you'd play for 240 hours?   A couple maybe, but not a lot.  Many people get a mere 10 hours out of those full retail titles.   "

Thing is - people are investing so much time into their WoW characters that they want em to look awesome.
Even if that means they pay $25 for a retarded looking mount. I endorse it though, as it is only looks. Not these insane "Pay $$$ for 10% more damage in PVP" crap you would expect on the long run.

That doesn't surprise me

" More like macro transactions considering they are making you pay the equivalent of 3 games to experience all the single player. "

I seriously cannot believe that there is a $25 skin for a mount, and that it sold a lot. I'm assuming a lot of it was gifts for people who play the game. I also would not call a $25 purchase a "micro-transaction". I haven't really seen how closed Bnet will be for things like player icons and stuff, so they might offer that stuff, but I severely doubt that they will be selling things that effect the balance of multiplayer SC II. I'm pretty much already on board to get a collector's edition SC II (~$100 cdn), so I'm not going to be looking for ways to make that purchase more expensive.

I'd also like to point out that the Celestial Steed is probably the most ridiculously lame looking mount in the entire game.

@Rolento

" I'd also like to point out that the Celestial Steed is probably the most ridiculously lame looking mount in the entire game. "

Unless it's coming to the Xbox or Steam, fuck Starcraft.

Brad Nicholson, I thought you worked for Destructoid?

I really hope they stay away from all this microtransaction & monthly fee stuff. They've already dealt a crippling blow to the game by breaking it into three games, but it's still possible to remain a classic the way the first one was if they stop the shenanigans there. Definitely crossing my fingers that they don't take any more missteps with this one. I'm unbelievably excited to see how it turns out.

Activision will make sure Blizzard sells $DLC for SC2. It's bad enough people have to pay $180 for the entire SC2 story, but they will also get raped in the ass for the $DLC too.

Damn, that's a lot of whining from you guys. Let people be stupid if they want to be stupid. Spare me your preachings.

" Activision will make sure Blizzard sells $DLC for SC2. It's bad enough people have to pay $180 for the entire SC2 story, but they will also get raped in the ass for the $DLC too. "

I bought that Oblivion horse armor and I don't regret a thing.

" There are tons of seedy things they could have done to squeeze more money out of the game, but they're haven't.  Where's GameStop's exclusive marine armor?  Where's Amazon's exclusive map pack?  Best Buy's extra single player level?  and, for the millionth time: It doesn't cost $180, it costs $60.  Wings of Liberty is a complete game worthy of that $60.  The story might not end with "for ever after", but if you want more, it's up to you to reach for your wallet. "

The extent to which the SC franchise will be milked will mostly depend on Activision at the moment. Right now, I consider the $60 per game price point acceptable, assuming that each subsequently release bring a full game's worth of content to the table.  It also makes sense to charge $60 for the SC2-1 as well. If it sells well enough, the publisher might have incentive to lower the price on parts 2 and 3. Mostly wishful thinking on my part, but it would be nice to see that Zerg and Protoss campaigns priced at levels more befitting expansions (say, $40).
 
I'm glad but surprised that they decided not to go down the microtransaction route, however. As we all know, Starcraft is absurdly popular in Korea, which is no stranger to loads upon loads of online games based on that pay structure.

The Universal News Network is my favorite space TV channel.