Mas no meio do tópico, surgiu uma explicação sobre a separação do jogo online nas regiões. E o principal motivo foi comercial.
Segundo um gerente de comundades da Blizzard (username: Bashiok), essa divisão foi criada porque alguns países receberam cópias mais baratas de SC2. Sendo assim, se não houvesse a limitação por região todo mundo iria importar as cópias mais baratas. Mesmo tendo o limite de 6 meses de jogatina (e o upgrade torna o preço final um pouco mais caro), ainda seria prejuízo para eles, por ex (a meu ver): muita gente em outros lugares compraram a versão FULL e daqui a 5 meses nem estarão mais jogando, muito menos iriam fazer upgrade). Sem contar que é numérico (óbvio
), mesmo que todos fizessem o upgrade depois, no inicio seria 50% a menos de arrecadação...Na mesma resposta, deixaram escapar a possibilidade de alterar a região, referindo-se a Austrália, África do Sul e Nova Zelândia que não têm áreas definidas podendo jogar numa região de escolha.
Deixei uma pergunta, e uma nova resposta colocada fazendo uma comparação a WC3... quem sabe num futuro distante.
Segue o link do post a quem interessar e se quiser acompanhar. Fiz um resumo das respostas:
http://us.battle.net/sc2/pt/forum/topic ... 99?page=10
Daí o pessoal perguntou, e eu também:Bashiok wrote:As far as cross-region support that can get trickier because not all regions pay the same, or have the same payment options, so we wouldn't want someone to, for example, buy a cheaper version somewhere else because we're offering it as an option for market reasons, and then be able to jump back to their own local region and play. Essentially importing to get the game on the cheap. So those types of situations have to be mapped out and a solution determined for how it'll all work out.
Right now we have a plan to implement an in-game region selection option, and our SEA/ANZ region will be getting NA access soon. So I think it'll be interesting to see how that pans out, and into the future.
MightyChimp wrote:Bashiok,
This directly contradicts an earlier Blizzard post on the matter that stated technology was the reason for lack of cross-region support.
So which is it, technology or a fear of people "importing to get the game on the cheap"?
I look forward to your response.
Resposta do Bashiok, meio que pra todo mundo:Nymer wrote:About region selection:
Ok, I live in Brazil and here the licence of SC2 (DVD version) is cheaper, but it only works for 6 months, after that the players needs to buy play cards (30 days ~60 days of playing) or do the upgrade to the full licence.
I already bought the full licence version from Blizzard' s site and I choosed the LA location to see the translated version and prestige the Blizzard's work (that was a good work!!), and my friends are divided: some in LA, some in NA. I didn't opted by the box version because I dont want get bothered in future making an upgrade.
But with this argument of the cheaper price, I was penalized from playing in other locations? The translated version, forces the player to stay in LA servers. If there was a language pack, I could buy the NA licence.
In these first 6 months, there isn't a good advantage to who bought the full licence. The difference in the final price (full --> upgrade) it's $7,50.
This future plan of implementation (region selection) will contemplate the LA players too?
My Regards.
Bashiok wrote:Hrm. I'd like to see a link (mostly so I'm not stepping on anyones toes... oh well I guess), but essentially there are two requests, and thus two potential responses.
1. The first request is that all regions be able to interact with each other seamlessly. A global region. You sign into one global network and the entire world is there. I've seen some comparison to game-related chat programs, which are not, in fact sold products with in-game communication - very different in business terms.
2. The second request is that access is provided to connect to all other regions, like Kalimdor and Lordaeron (for you War3 peoples), US West, and Europe (for you others, hisssss! oh wait this is SC2).
The first one - as a global in-game network isn't a feasible solution. There are many things that prevent such a possibility, technical restrictions (as apparently referred to by another, hissssss! oh wait I have to work with you) are only one such speed bump. Certainly a very solid and weighty one, though.
The second, which is essentially what classic Battle.net offered, is certainly attainable. But not without its own issues, work, and time needed to develop proper solutions.