What do I care if it has a fee, it has single player. I still get my story. I am more concerned with that than multiplayer in general anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
It's 100% sure that they will not charge monthly fees for Single Player, but yeah, they might want to have something like that with 'New' Battle.net, and they have the right to... Although I'm pretty sure they won't have subscriptions for a simple play in Battle.net (because it's not an MMO) I wouldn't mind paying for cooperative play... it has many advantages.
Firstly, we all enjoy Blizzard's producs. Subsciptions means more money for Blizzard for developing. We might even have weekly updates and events for Diablo 3 if they have enough money for that ^^ In addition, monthly fees would likely keep away the kiddies (We all know how much of a problem they were in Diablo 2 Battle.net). Of course, some parents would agree for the payment, but I'm sure that most wouldn't. That should keep only serious players in game and keep it clean of troublemakers.
All that, and I don't even think there will be any fees at all.
Most MMOs have game cards. These can be purchased with cash. Game cards work just as good if not better than a credit card subscription.
Firstly they do not require a credit card, and secondly, a credit card subscription does one month, game cards do more, here game cards do two months.
I can buy the game cash, buy the game cards cash. No credit card. Lots of children can do this, and do.
I do this as I do not own a credit card.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
The fact that they aren't considering LAN gameplay, basically forcing people on Battle.net means they are thinking about it, and they probably will have fees to play online.
I doubt that they will be more than $9.99/month though
I can't see Diablo supporting a "pay to play" system and succeeding... all it will do is shrink the online community. It doesn't have the grind factor of WoW, it is the sort of game you are more likely to play occasionally than non stop (although people still will >.<). It won't be in depth enough to warrant paying... unless it is... but then it won't be a diablo game and people will just hate it for that.
I love the Diablo series and I expect Diablo 3 to be "the best thing evar"... And I expect it to be my obsession that "destroys" wow... But I will not be paying to play online. I will most likely just play single player if that was the case... and if that is the case then I can't really see why you'd buy the game because theres ways around copy protection for almost any/every single player type game...
So in a way, it is in their best interests to NOT make it pay to play. Maybe they'll make slightly more money in total... but I think they will lose out on overall sales, and the online community will be much smaller.
Another thing... with such a big freaking cash cow as WoW you don't really need to milk it from diablo as well...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If we're actually making the game worse with no other reason than to be different from WoW, then it's a bad choice." - Jay Wilson (D3 lead designer)
Gaming used to be a cheap form of entertainment, and it still is. But gamemakers are realizing this and upping the prices because they can. $10 a month for playing diablo 3 online would be a lot more cost effective than any other type of entertainment I can think of. Sure it sucks thats the way things are headed, but blizzard has a near monopoly on GOOD games of this type.
Lanning is too similar to open B.Net. The reason they are holding up all these payment stuff is because they have yet to finalize the multiplayer system. Since D3 focuses on cooperative gameplay, lan would probably be too small a party to enjoy the game fully. Of course we can say that to D3 single player too, but I'm sure they have special modifications to single player, like D1.
Based on what i've seen on the forums D3 will make more money as non-pay2play just because otherwise no one will buy it
At least that's what i'm hoping for.
Seriously though, making D3 pay2play would be such a huge mistake, i highly doubt they will do it. There's plenty of other explanations as to why they would get rid of LAN.
Diablo Source: So no (monthly) fees for the Battle.net or the game?
Jay Wilson: I can not as far out of the window and refuse to say that there will be no charges. Our goal is box the product and also according to our financial model.The problem is that we are a multinational company, and the individual markets are very different.The Box Model works in Asia, for example, not at all.If we publish a financial model then we must simultaneously for each region and therefore it is difficult to say how the final financial model will look like.What I can say is that it is our goal, a game box model and not subscription based, but I can not say that we are no fees for whatever will have.It is not our goal and I do not think it is a primary financial model for us.
they dont want to use a subscription, it aint there goal, but theres a slight chance...
I think they watched how well Hellgate went with their selling mechanics. While games like GuildWars are going very good with the normal b2p mechanics. Blizzard would really be stupid to force a subscription fee for a game that would be room based. It would end up killing D3 just like it basically killed Hellgate.
they dont want to use a subscription, it aint there goal, but theres a slight chance...
We all know that Jay Wilson always delivers.
We're going for a very horror vibe ----> Bright Green Fog
We really are sticking to the roots of Diablo ----> Removes random hostile
We really want deeper strategy ----> Removes corpse based skills, fog of war; adds enemy blips on mini map
I really don't trust Jay Wilson on anything anymore. I really think he has a chance to be the worst thing that even happened to Diablo.
(I'm not saying D3 will be a bad game in anyway. . . but it certainly doesn't feel like a Diablo game. I want Diablo, not Zelda, God of War.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
If they charge for Diablo III and not StarCraft II, that would be screwed up. They both run on the same servers, so why do Diablo III players have to pay for themselves and the StarCraft II players? I think Blizzard knows that they can't make Diablo III pay to play without making StarCraft II pay to play. So I don't think either game will be pay to play, because StarCraft II just isn't that type of game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
We're going for a very horror vibe ----> Bright Green Fog
We really are sticking to the roots of Diablo ----> Removes random hostile
We really want deeper strategy ----> Removes corpse based skills, fog of war; adds enemy blips on mini map
I really don't trust Jay Wilson on anything anymore. I really think he has a chance to be the worst thing that even happened to Diablo.
(I'm not saying D3 will be a bad game in anyway. . . but it certainly doesn't feel like a Diablo game. I want Diablo, not Zelda, God of War.)
Your arguements are very biased.
This is Dark Messiah Might and Magic, this game is NOT for kids and is very gory and violent. Feel the green? There are a lot more of these in the dungeon areas. And no, I'm not against petitioners, but I'm against flawed arguements.
I'm not 100% sure about the rest of the things you say, but I just gotta say the arguements are getting really annoying. When I first saw the petitions going around I was quite impressed with how they photoshopped it, but I was relunctant to sign it because frankly Blizzard has my respect because I know they won't screw up. Then flawed arguements just started piling on and on. I agree if people pointed out the art direction, and how its not too diabloish, but I don't agree with all them, like colors etc.
If they charge for Diablo III and not StarCraft II, that would be screwed up. They both run on the same servers, so why do Diablo III players have to pay for themselves and the StarCraft II players? I think Blizzard knows that they can't make Diablo III pay to play without making StarCraft II pay to play. So I don't think either game will be pay to play, because StarCraft II just isn't that type of game.
no they can make you pay for services though... for example, they can say "ok here's some Ladder-only gear, and Ladder-only Content. If you want to make a ladder character you will need to purchase this card for $3.99 and enter the code on it in the character creation screen" or something like that.
they have said this will not be a pay2play game.... it was one of the early interviews... pretty sure its in the news thread... Jay Wilson said he wanted the game to be a one time fee
ox
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
1) I'd be playing without all of the petitioners (who seem to have all the reasons in the world not to play)
2) I'd be playing without the majority of the children (There will still be some here and there, but I wouldn't worry about it)
3) Standard server maintenance
4) A better customer service team (Although knowing Blizzard, it wouldn't be half as good as it could be)
5) Regular Patching content.
Those are common results (except the first one, I had to do it =P) of a Pay to Play system. It's hardly ever the case that the company wants to suck every last penny out of you for their own silver-lined pockets... but to use that money to put back into development, maintenance, and customer service.
But since all empirical evidence points towards a non-subscription system... let these pointless threads continue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
------------------------------------------- Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
-------------------------------------------
If they charge for Diablo III and not StarCraft II, that would be screwed up. They both run on the same servers, so why do Diablo III players have to pay for themselves and the StarCraft II players? I think Blizzard knows that they can't make Diablo III pay to play without making StarCraft II pay to play. So I don't think either game will be pay to play, because StarCraft II just isn't that type of game.
Microsoft charges $50 a year for unlimited access to their xbox live online play to tons of games that are completely different. I could see blizzard charging a similar fee for unlimited battlenet access. Then they would start bridging between games, make profiles carry over, be able to see someones characters/profiles in different games, etc. I may be wrong, but I think a lot of people who play Diablo II also bought WC2, WC3, SC...
WoW is their only current game not hosted on Battle.net and is the only P2P game- this is because of the massive amount of power needed to host millions of players simultaneously for an MMO (whereas in games with drop in drop out, it doesn't take nearly as much since you just send players to a chat channel.) Battle.net has been free forever, and Jay Wilson himself said he is planning on it being a one-time payment (for buying the game.) Diablo III is not going to be P2P, get over it.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
Firstly, we all enjoy Blizzard's producs. Subsciptions means more money for Blizzard for developing. We might even have weekly updates and events for Diablo 3 if they have enough money for that ^^ In addition, monthly fees would likely keep away the kiddies (We all know how much of a problem they were in Diablo 2 Battle.net). Of course, some parents would agree for the payment, but I'm sure that most wouldn't. That should keep only serious players in game and keep it clean of troublemakers.
All that, and I don't even think there will be any fees at all.
Most MMOs have game cards. These can be purchased with cash. Game cards work just as good if not better than a credit card subscription.
Firstly they do not require a credit card, and secondly, a credit card subscription does one month, game cards do more, here game cards do two months.
I can buy the game cash, buy the game cards cash. No credit card. Lots of children can do this, and do.
I do this as I do not own a credit card.
I doubt that they will be more than $9.99/month though
I love the Diablo series and I expect Diablo 3 to be "the best thing evar"... And I expect it to be my obsession that "destroys" wow... But I will not be paying to play online. I will most likely just play single player if that was the case... and if that is the case then I can't really see why you'd buy the game because theres ways around copy protection for almost any/every single player type game...
So in a way, it is in their best interests to NOT make it pay to play. Maybe they'll make slightly more money in total... but I think they will lose out on overall sales, and the online community will be much smaller.
Another thing... with such a big freaking cash cow as WoW you don't really need to milk it from diablo as well...
Blizzard
Valve
:thumbsup:
At least that's what i'm hoping for.
Seriously though, making D3 pay2play would be such a huge mistake, i highly doubt they will do it. There's plenty of other explanations as to why they would get rid of LAN.
Jay Wilson: I can not as far out of the window and refuse to say that there will be no charges. Our goal is box the product and also according to our financial model.The problem is that we are a multinational company, and the individual markets are very different.The Box Model works in Asia, for example, not at all.If we publish a financial model then we must simultaneously for each region and therefore it is difficult to say how the final financial model will look like.What I can say is that it is our goal, a game box model and not subscription based, but I can not say that we are no fees for whatever will have.It is not our goal and I do not think it is a primary financial model for us.
they dont want to use a subscription, it aint there goal, but theres a slight chance...
We all know that Jay Wilson always delivers.
We're going for a very horror vibe ----> Bright Green Fog
We really are sticking to the roots of Diablo ----> Removes random hostile
We really want deeper strategy ----> Removes corpse based skills, fog of war; adds enemy blips on mini map
I really don't trust Jay Wilson on anything anymore. I really think he has a chance to be the worst thing that even happened to Diablo.
(I'm not saying D3 will be a bad game in anyway. . . but it certainly doesn't feel like a Diablo game. I want Diablo, not Zelda, God of War.)
D3 Pros: Outdoors environment, night time environment, female Barbarian, rune spell system, the Wizard class
D3 Cons: Fantasy architecture, fantasy armor, fanstasy weapons, no shaders.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Your arguements are very biased.
This is Dark Messiah Might and Magic, this game is NOT for kids and is very gory and violent. Feel the green? There are a lot more of these in the dungeon areas. And no, I'm not against petitioners, but I'm against flawed arguements.
I'm not 100% sure about the rest of the things you say, but I just gotta say the arguements are getting really annoying. When I first saw the petitions going around I was quite impressed with how they photoshopped it, but I was relunctant to sign it because frankly Blizzard has my respect because I know they won't screw up. Then flawed arguements just started piling on and on. I agree if people pointed out the art direction, and how its not too diabloish, but I don't agree with all them, like colors etc.
I hate the large shoulder pads btw.
Sorry for off topic.
Blizzard
Valve
:thumbsup:
ox
-Albert Einstein
1) I'd be playing without all of the petitioners (who seem to have all the reasons in the world not to play)
2) I'd be playing without the majority of the children (There will still be some here and there, but I wouldn't worry about it)
3) Standard server maintenance
4) A better customer service team (Although knowing Blizzard, it wouldn't be half as good as it could be)
5) Regular Patching content.
Those are common results (except the first one, I had to do it =P) of a Pay to Play system. It's hardly ever the case that the company wants to suck every last penny out of you for their own silver-lined pockets... but to use that money to put back into development, maintenance, and customer service.
But since all empirical evidence points towards a non-subscription system... let these pointless threads continue.
-------------------------------------------
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
-------------------------------------------
Microsoft charges $50 a year for unlimited access to their xbox live online play to tons of games that are completely different. I could see blizzard charging a similar fee for unlimited battlenet access. Then they would start bridging between games, make profiles carry over, be able to see someones characters/profiles in different games, etc. I may be wrong, but I think a lot of people who play Diablo II also bought WC2, WC3, SC...