15 replies to this topic

[DarkShadow]

We hate it to be the �bad news deliverer� but someone have to say it. We just recieved disappointing news from an trusted source after some researches after the BlizzCon 09 and the sad truth is:

As we all know ,Blizzard came up with the idea to make this �great� social network (first guessed are twitter or facebook) and one of the problems is money.This service definetely requires some big buck to be invested and to �solve� this problem Blizzard came up with the brilliant idea � to make monthly �fees� like in World of Warcraft.

So you just have to pay a few dollars to get access to Battle.net 2.0. By the way: they�re also planning the same for Diablo 3 but we already knew this months ago as Blizzard said this on the conference in 2008. That�s not a big surprise because people knew it already in 2008 but always thought that it�ll be avoided by other incomes. That�s why Blizzard didn�t announced it on BlizzCon.

Diablo III�s director Jay Wilson recently told an audience at BlizzCon that Blizzard and Activision are looking to make some money with the Battle.Net service.
Jay Wilson:
We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features. We kind of have to.

The other argument is that Blizzard can 100% avoid piracy with this monthly costs.

There aren�t any further informations about the costs yet but it is supposed to be between 5 and 8 $. Less than World of Warcraft. This was also an answer to the 130,000 Petition Signatures

So when you buy Diablo 3, and Starcraft 2, You have to pay to play it online, goodjob Blizzard, way to alienate your userbase.

[wondergod]

guess i won't play sc2 or d3.

[MainEvent]

I was too optimistic, I guess.

[Ezekiel]

Well fuck, strike a few more games off the very short list of something possibly worth playing in the future....

[DocSeuss]

Where was the first quote from? All I know is that Blizzard has said they are looking for ways to monetize Battle.net. However, when you buy SC2 you WILL NOT have to pay to be able to play online. They mentioned that top designed maps could cost money to download. Which also opens the doors for map designed to make a cut of the money (like apple App store).

[DarkShadow]

starcraft2.pro

granted, its still a bit far to really determine every aspect of bnet 2.0, I can say without a doubt something like this is no surprise with Activision trying to run the show.

They're trying to make it like xbox live, but for Blizz games.

[Ezekiel]

Where was the first quote from? All I know is that Blizzard has said they are looking for ways to monetize Battle.net. However, when you buy SC2 you WILL NOT have to pay to be able to play online. They mentioned that top designed maps could cost money to download. Which also opens the doors for map designed to make a cut of the money (like apple App store).

I hope you're right.

[Stubs]

I was too optimistic, I guess.

This.

[Halcomb]

I'll still "purchase" D3, I guess it'll just be singleplayer or make use of "LAN" gaming. *cough*

[Chilly]

Wow, so disappointed... The hell Blizzard's trying to do? Make StarCraft 2 and Diablo III World of Warcraft? =/

[EVIL Shenanigans]

The hell Blizzard's trying to do? Make StarCraft 2 and Diablo III World of Warcraft? =/

Yes....thats exactly what they're tryin to do. Hell, when the first game play video for D3 came up, a sh*tton of people started b*tching because it looked so much like WoW and seemed so distant from the dark, mysterious D1. And its just a money market out there nowadays once they (Macro game dev's) realized what lil sh*ts across the globe can convince their mommies to pay. And that little ditty about "We need to monetize Battle.net so that we can keep making games and upgrading features."??? If by upgrading features they mean patches, its their f*ckin responsibility to not sell broken games...we shouldnt have to pay them more so they can fine tune it for us. And 'keep making games'? W.t.f*ck is the point of the original purchase price then? A downpayment on a first class ticket for our souls trip to hell? Using the profit off of sales of their game gave them enough money to go and create another amazing game and so-on. Now it seems their to the point where the don't give a f*ck and their just gonna do whatever the hell they want. ...and I'm ranting as if I'm surprised by all this...hell, i predicted this sh*t when we were talking about Blizzard last.

*sigh* ...In the end, i'll probably acquire D3 if only to play the sp...as for SC2, it's just SC1 with a f*ckin shine-job anyways, so f*ck it.

Edited by EVIL Shenanigans, 30 August 2009 - 10:12 PM.

[Scroll_Lock88]

Meh, I'm confident someone will be able to unlock both for some sort of LAN play. I don't delve deep into the development fluff until they get close to releasing.

[Vicious]

I'll prolly still get SC2 and D3 for single player, but f*ck them.. they don't make ENOUGH billions with WoW? -_-

[Chilly]

$15 x Millions... I think that's more than enough money to get Battle.net working, properly.

[Sniprwulf]

$15 x Millions... I think that's more than enough money to get Battle.net working, properly.

Doubt it.

As per the pay to play bullsh*t, everyone saw this one coming.

[DarkShadow]

it can Snipr, servers aren't very costly when all you pay for is rackspace and bandwidth.