Is this what we are for you, Cashcows? Whitout the huge Diablo community your Diablo 3 would not exist.
I was realy wondering why your forcing the Blizzard community on the new Battle.Net 2.
But with this info ( and i don't belive that Michael Pachter would say this just for fun ) you are going to
lose a fan and consumer of your Products!
I don't care how long multipayer of SC2 or D3 will last. But i will not support your capitalistic milking
machine to sqiuze out the last little penny from your cunsumors.
Do you think the Fans are going to "have fun" paying 10 Dollars a month to play SC2 or D3 multiplayer ?
These games are no MMORPG's! When i want to play on weekends muliplayer in D3 with my buddies in coop, to find out how the story goes on, i don't want too read or hear:
" Sorry, but for the MP part of the game you have to pay additional 10$ monthly fee to the already payed
60$ for the Maingame! Oh, did we tell you that the Maingame is only SP and that the MP part will be avalible on Battle.Net 2 as DLC for just 19,99$ ?"
You have taken the Lan mode out of the game so the player must get Battle.Net 2 to play MP.
Its not about safty, its not about having fun with your buddies! Its just all about our Money!
That is sooo like Activision. If you want to make a bunch of money, then you should develop
"World of Diablo" or just stick to your cash milking machine "WOW"!
Too bad its not about having fun anymore, but thats just the way it is. Someone has a great idea , and
alot of other people abuse the idea to make Money. Take what it costs!
What do you think?
Would you pay a monthly fee to play MP for D3 or SC2 if you don't have WOW?
May sound like trolling but i am realy pis.....ed of!
I would like to see a blue answer about that link.
This is D-Hammers post on Blizzards forums
Now as for me I have been a huge fan of D2 (my all time fav pc game) and would probly be a huge fan of D3 aswel but I am not sure I will Pay to Play on Battle.net this isnt a MMO and I cant see paying to connect to Battle.net just to play multi player.
If this is the case and is put in place then I fear that I will not be playing D3 and this bumbs me out as I have waited SOOO LOOONG for this game. P.S is this a side effect of the Activision influence on Blizzard?
True, but the market is too lucrative for Activision Blizzard to NOT sell things online for their games. WoW pets/mounts rake in $millions within 24 hours. D3/SC2 will offer something similar.
Nobody is expecting anything different from WoW on that regard, that is it won't give you any real in game advantage.
Anyway, what the hell is this topic? Where did Blizzard say anything about it not being free anymore? What is this all about? Just some kids overreacting and saying -then I won't buy the game-, when its not even true? Or thats actual trolling I see here?
Trolling is the act of saying or doing something offensive/annoying with the sole purpose of bothering other users. The TC had not only a genuine concern, but also EVIDENCE to back up his claim. If you're calling him a troll for having a genuine concern, with evidence from a good source, then you are the troll, not him.
Now, back to the actual topic at hand; are any of you CERTAIN that battle.net will be free? Do you have strong evidence, or an official announcement? They've announced that d3 and sc2 multiplayer will be free, but they can charge for the battle.net platform and use the technicality that it's a seperate platform in order to charge money.
The way I understand it, and it sounds like Pach agrees, is that people will no longer be paying World of Warcraft fees every month, they will be paying Battle.net fees. In other words, WoW players will be playing d3 and sc2 for free online. And if you were to, say, purchase Diablo 3, and pay to get on battle.net, you will no longer have to pay monthly for WoW, as it's all one fee. It's like a 3 for 1, which is okay for WoW players, but screws everyone else over.
I didn't see any official announcement that battle.net 2.0 would be free. Could somebody send a link? If you can't source anything you're saying, then don't even bother replying, I'm looking for evidence, not just "It would be stupid for them to charge for battle.net, so I don't think they will, so I'll pass this on as fact."
I'm not saying my argument is factual either, but it sounds like we have a little more evidence to go on.
***edit***
I found a blue post from the forums. "As mentioned before, players will be able to use Battle.net for free when they purchase the full version of StarCraft II. There have been no changes to this." This post was made in August 2009.
I just wanted to put some people's minds at ease. The TC still had a perfectly valid point and a perfectly valid source for it. There's no reason to call him a troll just because you don't like what he has to say.
Now, back to the actual topic at hand; are any of you CERTAIN that battle.net will be free? Do you have strong evidence, or an official announcement? They've announced that d3 and sc2 multiplayer will be free, but they can charge for the battle.net platform and use the technicality that it's a seperate platform in order to charge money.
Battle.net will be free, yes.
I didn't see any official announcement that battle.net 2.0 would be free.
There isn't any real "Battle.net 2.0". That's just what everyone calls the same Battle.net with different interfaces on the newer games. It's like the same concept as "web 2.0"- same web, just different concepts/focuses (like usability, social networking, etc.). By that reasoning alone, since Battle.net is already free (and WoW is not really on Battle.net, although it will be upgraded with social interaction with Battle.net), there would not be regular fees. That's the usual argument, years old.
Battle.net provides an arena for Blizzard customers to chat, challenge opponents and initiate multiplayer games, at no cost to the user. There is no hourly or monthly fee to use Battle.net, and there is no startup charge. To play a supported game over the Internet with other players worldwide, simply select the Battle.net option from within the game. "
Another reason is that it is not an MMO, and cannot be subject to MMO-like charges. Of course, today, that now means very little. That's also an age-old argument, but I don't think it's very applicable today since we since charging for all kinds of games.Also, more recent, and more official and rational:
Official Blizzard Quote:
"Mike mentioned it in an Activision Blizzard investor meeting [paraphrased] "
A player that buys Starcraft 2 at retail will have the ability to play on Battle.net with no additional fee.
"I'll point out that this is a very carefully worded statement."
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
Well, I'm not in Russia, and either are more than 99% (yay, random statistics!) players, so... we're still golden! *high fives all around*
That is kinda random, though. I wonder why that is. Maybe there's such a low player base in Russia that they need monthly fees to account for server costs (less people seeing adds, less copies sold in the region)? Or maybe it's legal things over there. Hrm... Any idea?
Well, I'm not in Russia, and either are more than 99% (yay, random statistics!) players, so... we're still golden! *high fives all around*
That is kinda random, though. I wonder why that is. Maybe there's such a low player base in Russia that they need monthly fees to account for server costs (less people seeing adds, less copies sold in the region)? Or maybe it's legal things over there. Hrm... Any idea?
Im a originally a Russian myself(don't live there though), and last time I've heard most of the country is still on dial-up internet, either that or the traffic prices are sky rocketing.
Its cheaper to buy a retail version of a game instead of downloading a pirated version of it.
btw first time I hear that the russian version will contain p2p, wonder if it won't be cracked..
Or maybe it's legal things over there. Hrm... Any idea?
There seems no reason to charge for B.net just to make more money off of russians, so legal seems like a good guess. Sort of like how Blizzard competitions can't be entirely global due to how different countries classify these contests.
Perhaps though if bandwidth is so expensive, they need to charge in order not to lose a lot of money due to running B.net servers there.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Agree! But this discussion has been taken sooo many times before. What is 10-20 dollars a month anyway? If you can afford to spend(waste) loads of hours messing around with a game like DIII, you should be able to afford a small monthly p2p. People who say its about the principal is IMO BS - its a game, a computer game. An amazing computer game, so why not pay a ridiculously small amount for it to stay updated and awesome?
My 2p's ranting.
Cheers'
Problabky cause ppl like to play casualy. Like 2~3 days and stop, so pay a whole mouth is unviable. What a shame =/
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
Problabky cause ppl like to play casualy. Like 2~3 days and stop, so pay a whole mouth is unviable. What a shame =/
Precisely, and it's been called a casual game by the developers for a long time, which is why they make it easily accessible (not graphically intensive for the widest possible audience, no overly-complicated game mechanics), instantly-gratifying, and easy to put down and pick back up.
There's really no reason for a monthly fee, actually. Having or not having one does not promise that we won't have hackers. We always will. They have them in WoW. If you're basing that presumption on either Diablo II or Diablo I, those are decade-old games built on decade-old servers and server software as well as hopelessly entangled coding that is trying to fight modern (as in, infinitely more complex and powerful) third-party programs, hacks, etc. that would never have been a problem for the game or the old Battle.net in its time.
It doesn't promise that we'll get new content all the time, that's up to the developers, and they've already promised we'll see multiple expansions, which would mean more content than any patch could possibly provide. If you're really just dying to shell out money, you can buy all the expansions, and there is still a high probability of micro-payments, both of which would mean they would be interested in keeping the game as clean as possible.
Problabky cause ppl like to play casualy. Like 2~3 days and stop, so pay a whole mouth is unviable. What a shame =/
Precisely, and it's been called a casual game by the developers for a long time, which is why they make it easily accessible (not graphically intensive for the widest possible audience, no overly-complicated game mechanics), instantly-gratifying, and easy to put down and pick back up.
There's really no reason for a monthly fee, actually. Having or not having one does not promise that we won't have hackers. We always will. They have them in WoW. If you're basing that presumption on either Diablo II or Diablo I, those are decade-old games built on decade-old servers and server software as well as hopelessly entangled coding that is trying to fight modern (as in, infinitely more complex and powerful) third-party programs, hacks, etc. that would never have been a problem for the game or the old Battle.net in its time.
It doesn't promise that we'll get new content all the time, that's up to the developers, and they've already promised we'll see multiple expansions, which would mean more content than any patch could possibly provide. If you're really just dying to shell out money, you can buy all the expansions, and there is still a high probability of micro-payments, both of which would mean they would be interested in keeping the game as clean as possible.
Actually, hacks is not the reason for my wish of a p2p D3. Actually, p2p is a finantial insentive to hackers. In p2p games, times itself has a cost. This increase the cost of items and gameservices, wich also increase the economical insentive to hackers work on that particular game.
I want p2p to increase the chances of new content coming out every year. Even
Actually, hacks is not the reason for my wish of a p2p D3. Actually, p2p is a finantial insentive to hackers. In p2p games, times itself has a cost. This increase the cost of items and gameservices, wich also increase the economical insentive to hackers work on that particular game.
I didn't say it was your reason I only presented the two most commonly-claimed arguments. I do think that you have a good point there, though. If each second you play you're paying for, it forces you to think about how you really want to spend that time.
I want p2p to increase the chances of new content coming out every year.
And, like I said previously, we've already been promised a ton of content after the release of the game. Multiple expansions. Whole new expansions are, without a doubt in my mind, much more feature-rich than any patch. And, if you think about it this way, you basically get just what you asked for - p2p, that is - since you'd have to pay for the base game and each new expansion. That's like $50 for the base game and that or less for each expansion. Blizzard makes lots of money, we get more content, and the team that is now far more professional than Diablo II's team back in the day will be committed to further work on the franchise. Ta-da! Everyone wins!
LINK: Updated, if it dosn't work go to www.gametrailers.com & search: pach attack Ep 116
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/episode-116-pach-attack/100152
Is this what we are for you, Cashcows? Whitout the huge Diablo community your Diablo 3 would not exist.
I was realy wondering why your forcing the Blizzard community on the new Battle.Net 2.
But with this info ( and i don't belive that Michael Pachter would say this just for fun ) you are going to
lose a fan and consumer of your Products!
I don't care how long multipayer of SC2 or D3 will last. But i will not support your capitalistic milking
machine to sqiuze out the last little penny from your cunsumors.
Do you think the Fans are going to "have fun" paying 10 Dollars a month to play SC2 or D3 multiplayer ?
These games are no MMORPG's! When i want to play on weekends muliplayer in D3 with my buddies in coop, to find out how the story goes on, i don't want too read or hear:
" Sorry, but for the MP part of the game you have to pay additional 10$ monthly fee to the already payed
60$ for the Maingame! Oh, did we tell you that the Maingame is only SP and that the MP part will be avalible on Battle.Net 2 as DLC for just 19,99$ ?"
You have taken the Lan mode out of the game so the player must get Battle.Net 2 to play MP.
Its not about safty, its not about having fun with your buddies! Its just all about our Money!
That is sooo like Activision. If you want to make a bunch of money, then you should develop
"World of Diablo" or just stick to your cash milking machine "WOW"!
Too bad its not about having fun anymore, but thats just the way it is. Someone has a great idea , and
alot of other people abuse the idea to make Money. Take what it costs!
What do you think?
Would you pay a monthly fee to play MP for D3 or SC2 if you don't have WOW?
May sound like trolling but i am realy pis.....ed of!
I would like to see a blue answer about that link.
This is D-Hammers post on Blizzards forums
Now as for me I have been a huge fan of D2 (my all time fav pc game) and would probly be a huge fan of D3 aswel but I am not sure I will Pay to Play on Battle.net this isnt a MMO and I cant see paying to connect to Battle.net just to play multi player.
If this is the case and is put in place then I fear that I will not be playing D3 and this bumbs me out as I have waited SOOO LOOONG for this game. P.S is this a side effect of the Activision influence on Blizzard?
Your thoughts plz and thanks for reading.
Diablo III Analyst
SC2Mapster
Nobody is expecting anything different from WoW on that regard, that is it won't give you any real in game advantage.
Anyway, what the hell is this topic? Where did Blizzard say anything about it not being free anymore? What is this all about? Just some kids overreacting and saying -then I won't buy the game-, when its not even true? Or thats actual trolling I see here?
Now, back to the actual topic at hand; are any of you CERTAIN that battle.net will be free? Do you have strong evidence, or an official announcement? They've announced that d3 and sc2 multiplayer will be free, but they can charge for the battle.net platform and use the technicality that it's a seperate platform in order to charge money.
The way I understand it, and it sounds like Pach agrees, is that people will no longer be paying World of Warcraft fees every month, they will be paying Battle.net fees. In other words, WoW players will be playing d3 and sc2 for free online. And if you were to, say, purchase Diablo 3, and pay to get on battle.net, you will no longer have to pay monthly for WoW, as it's all one fee. It's like a 3 for 1, which is okay for WoW players, but screws everyone else over.
I didn't see any official announcement that battle.net 2.0 would be free. Could somebody send a link? If you can't source anything you're saying, then don't even bother replying, I'm looking for evidence, not just "It would be stupid for them to charge for battle.net, so I don't think they will, so I'll pass this on as fact."
I'm not saying my argument is factual either, but it sounds like we have a little more evidence to go on.
***edit***
I found a blue post from the forums. "As mentioned before, players will be able to use Battle.net for free when they purchase the full version of StarCraft II. There have been no changes to this." This post was made in August 2009.
I just wanted to put some people's minds at ease. The TC still had a perfectly valid point and a perfectly valid source for it. There's no reason to call him a troll just because you don't like what he has to say.
I should probably email the blue post to Pachter.
Battle.net will be free, yes.
There isn't any real "Battle.net 2.0". That's just what everyone calls the same Battle.net with different interfaces on the newer games. It's like the same concept as "web 2.0"- same web, just different concepts/focuses (like usability, social networking, etc.). By that reasoning alone, since Battle.net is already free (and WoW is not really on Battle.net, although it will be upgraded with social interaction with Battle.net), there would not be regular fees. That's the usual argument, years old.
Official Blizzard Quote:
http://www.battle.ne....../intro.shtml
Battle.net provides an arena for Blizzard customers to chat, challenge opponents and initiate multiplayer games, at no cost to the user. There is no hourly or monthly fee to use Battle.net, and there is no startup charge. To play a supported game over the Internet with other players worldwide, simply select the Battle.net option from within the game. "
Another reason is that it is not an MMO, and cannot be subject to MMO-like charges. Of course, today, that now means very little. That's also an age-old argument, but I don't think it's very applicable today since we since charging for all kinds of games. Also, more recent, and more official and rational:
Official Blizzard Quote:
"Mike mentioned it in an Activision Blizzard investor meeting [paraphrased] "
A player that buys Starcraft 2 at retail will have the ability to play on Battle.net with no additional fee.
"I'll point out that this is a very carefully worded statement."
Source. Also more on microtransactions.
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24262386737&sid=5010&pageNo=2
That is kinda random, though. I wonder why that is. Maybe there's such a low player base in Russia that they need monthly fees to account for server costs (less people seeing adds, less copies sold in the region)? Or maybe it's legal things over there. Hrm... Any idea?
Im a originally a Russian myself(don't live there though), and last time I've heard most of the country is still on dial-up internet, either that or the traffic prices are sky rocketing.
Its cheaper to buy a retail version of a game instead of downloading a pirated version of it.
btw first time I hear that the russian version will contain p2p, wonder if it won't be cracked..
Perhaps though if bandwidth is so expensive, they need to charge in order not to lose a lot of money due to running B.net servers there.
Apparently Russia is the only exception to their F2P policy, so have no fear.
Will not be discussed here, because they violates the EULA or w/e
Problabky cause ppl like to play casualy. Like 2~3 days and stop, so pay a whole mouth is unviable. What a shame =/
Oh wait, is that WoW?
Precisely, and it's been called a casual game by the developers for a long time, which is why they make it easily accessible (not graphically intensive for the widest possible audience, no overly-complicated game mechanics), instantly-gratifying, and easy to put down and pick back up.
There's really no reason for a monthly fee, actually. Having or not having one does not promise that we won't have hackers. We always will. They have them in WoW. If you're basing that presumption on either Diablo II or Diablo I, those are decade-old games built on decade-old servers and server software as well as hopelessly entangled coding that is trying to fight modern (as in, infinitely more complex and powerful) third-party programs, hacks, etc. that would never have been a problem for the game or the old Battle.net in its time.
It doesn't promise that we'll get new content all the time, that's up to the developers, and they've already promised we'll see multiple expansions, which would mean more content than any patch could possibly provide. If you're really just dying to shell out money, you can buy all the expansions, and there is still a high probability of micro-payments, both of which would mean they would be interested in keeping the game as clean as possible.
Actually, hacks is not the reason for my wish of a p2p D3. Actually, p2p is a finantial insentive to hackers. In p2p games, times itself has a cost. This increase the cost of items and gameservices, wich also increase the economical insentive to hackers work on that particular game.
I want p2p to increase the chances of new content coming out every year. Even
I didn't say it was your reason I only presented the two most commonly-claimed arguments. I do think that you have a good point there, though. If each second you play you're paying for, it forces you to think about how you really want to spend that time.
And, like I said previously, we've already been promised a ton of content after the release of the game. Multiple expansions. Whole new expansions are, without a doubt in my mind, much more feature-rich than any patch. And, if you think about it this way, you basically get just what you asked for - p2p, that is - since you'd have to pay for the base game and each new expansion. That's like $50 for the base game and that or less for each expansion. Blizzard makes lots of money, we get more content, and the team that is now far more professional than Diablo II's team back in the day will be committed to further work on the franchise. Ta-da! Everyone wins!