There's a small problem though, you don't know what you are complaining about. That's kind of, well, asinine. There's people pretty much cutting their wrists about this "possibility", and over what? A comment that they want the game to be free and that there are certain features they are thinking about that if they do enable access to would require people to pay a monthly fee? That says nothing. What would be a problem with features possibly being added on as an additional option instead of not at all when we don't even have the slightest idea as to what these "optional features" are?
If they had said they were thinking about asking for a monthly fee for regularly added content, extra storage space, or exclusive items then by all means, yell and scream to your heart's content, I don't blame you. But as it stands there is nothing to yell about. For all we know these features could be something good that wouldn't compromise the game for people not willing to pay.
Several MMOs have had such an additional service. Such as a site that keeps your character's data on it in a nice portfolio with a player finding system along with player/character biography and history tracker (such as what quests had been completed and when) as well as several other useful features that had no impact on the game itself whatsoever for a small monthly fee.
Which is why I say before throwing tantrums let's see what they are "considering".
The problem isn't what they're considering charging for, its that they ARE considering it at all.
Look at Guild Wars. It still is running, off of expansion money, pretty sizable playerbase for a startup, and the only things they charge for are additional things like character slots that are permanent and give no additional advantage to those who do not similarly pay.
I've said in multiple posts that I don't mind pay for content that renders no in game advantage and is more or less cosmetic in nature. But paying a monthly fee is out of the question, given the scope of the game. You pay $15 a month for WoW, and its a massive free-form world with up to 40 man raids and huge diversity.
Diablo will at MOST be a 4 man instanced game and a GUI chat service. Not to mention that I'm not all that impressed by the game's graphics or GFX, when compared to current generation games.
Maybe people's expectations have been lower considering all the dreck that is passed off as games these days, but when you're up against next gen games like Call of Duty, the Tom Clancy stuff, and a bunch of competitors who want your market share, you'd think the game they release would be more than just a graphically different WoW with all instance play in small parties.
If you all want to just sit back and take it be my guest, but I will use my right to say what I want and complain about what I see as a step backward, not forwards, and hopefully effect the outcome positively. If Blizzard decides to go with a P2P format, then they lose me as a customer is all. I'm sure its no big deal to them, they've got 9 million people who are slaves to their power. But I can at least make my point.
The problem isn't what they're considering charging for, its that they ARE considering it at all.
Look at Guild Wars. It still is running, off of expansion money, pretty sizable playerbase for a startup, and the only things they charge for are additional things like character slots that are permanent and give no additional advantage to those who do not similarly pay.
I've said in multiple posts that I don't mind pay for content that renders no in game advantage and is more or less cosmetic in nature. But paying a monthly fee is out of the question, given the scope of the game. You pay $15 a month for WoW, and its a massive free-form world with up to 40 man raids and huge diversity.
Diablo will at MOST be a 4 man instanced game and a GUI chat service. Not to mention that I'm not all that impressed by the game's graphics or GFX, when compared to current generation games.
Maybe people's expectations have been lower considering all the dreck that is passed off as games these days, but when you're up against next gen games like Call of Duty, the Tom Clancy stuff, and a bunch of competitors who want your market share, you'd think the game they release would be more than just a graphically different WoW with all instance play in small parties.
If you all want to just sit back and take it be my guest, but I will use my right to say what I want and complain about what I see as a step backward, not forwards, and hopefully effect the outcome positively. If Blizzard decides to go with a P2P format, then they lose me as a customer is all. I'm sure its no big deal to them, they've got 9 million people who are slaves to their power. But I can at least make my point.
You seem to be getting the wrong idea about what was said.
However, the developer did note that Blizzard will likely monetize unknown features of the game. "We are going to monetize features so that we get to make them," said Wilson. "We kind of have to."
They are not saying that they are going to charge a monthly fee for Diablo 3. They are saying there are possibly features (and I mentioned above about those features having no compromise to the game and you yourself mentioned additional character slots) that could require a fee. Actually they never even used the term monthly fee/subscription here and were talking about specifically features the entire time.
For all we know this could be purchasing additional character slots for your account.
You seem to be getting the wrong idea about what was said.
They are not saying that they are going to charge a monthly fee for Diablo 3. They are saying there are possibly features (and I mentioned above about those features having no compromise to the game and you yourself mentioned additional character slots) that could require a fee. Actually they never even used the term monthly fee/subscription here and were talking about specifically features the entire time.
For all we know this could be purchasing additional character slots for your account.
No I'm really not. I fully understand the situation, I'm just saying that its a slippery slope, and once people accept the idea of DLC and P2P, that a monthly "Battle.Net maintenance fee" is not far behind.
By adamantly reinforcing the idea that the playerbase will not accept that, its possible to avert such a disaster before its considered. However, complaints lodged AFTER THE FACT are impotent at best.
And given the state of the economy, and the industry's move into microtransactions as a money machine, its not hard to imagine Blizzard creating a deception of optional when its actually required.
No I'm really not. I fully understand the situation, I'm just saying that its a slippery slope, and once people accept the idea of DLC and P2P, that a monthly "Battle.Net maintenance fee" is not far behind.
By adamantly reinforcing the idea that the playerbase will not accept that, its possible to avert such a disaster before its considered. However, complaints lodged AFTER THE FACT are impotent at best.
And given the state of the economy, and the industry's move into microtransactions as a money machine, its not hard to imagine Blizzard creating a deception of optional when its actually required.
Monetizing Features doesn't translate to downloadable content and P2P to me, sorry. They haven't asked anyone to accept the idea of either one of those things and I am against DLC (for a fee) and P2P when it comes to Diablo specifically. I'm not going to complain to Blizzard about something they haven't done and that they must be preparing to do because others companies have.
I can understand people voicing their opinion that they are against a monthly fee, hell I completely agree. What I can't understand is people making empty threats and screaming at Blizzard for something they haven't done and have yet to say they are thinking about doing. They didn't once say they are considering DLC or P2P.
Monetizing Features doesn't translate to downloadable content and P2P to me, sorry. They haven't asked anyone to accept the idea of either one of those things and I am against DLC (for a fee) and P2P when it comes to Diablo specifically. I'm not going to complain to Blizzard about something they haven't done and that they must be preparing to do because others companies have.
So you're against the idea of P2P and DLC, but WON'T complain about it when *laugh* Blizzard is forced into it because other companies have? Excuse my insolence, but Blizzard is one of the most successful game developers out there, with an MMO that generates immense cash flow. I highly doubt they're in the same bracket as other game developers who need to scrape and search for every bit of publisher's money they can find.
I can understand people voicing their opinion that they are against a monthly fee, hell I completely agree. What I can't understand is people making empty threats and screaming at Blizzard for something they haven't done and have yet to say they are thinking about doing. They didn't once say they are considering DLC or P2P.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Well, just ask yourself what could the term "monetizing features" POSSIBLY refer to. Obviously it means in past games features that were included as part of the base program are to be made a cash cow, whether that means extra storage, character slots or what have you. Which in my mind is simply abuse of the playerbase, with the kind of revenue stream Blizzard has its very little to them to have an extra couple of character slots or a few more pixels of in game storage.
The fact that these might be the types of features "monetized" (and I find it tough to imagine what else that could refer to) is them simply just looking to take the average gamer by the ankles, hold them upside down and vigorously shake them until every last cent tumbles into their holds.
(...) Are you serious that you cant find 120 bucks (10 bucks a month) to play d3 for a year? (...)
Like i said in my post, its all about HOW MUCH they charge (assuming it would be montly fees, wich i doubt).
We dont have a exact answer from blizzard so we cant crucify them yet.
But assuming that there will be fees 10 buck a month is TOO MUCH for a game like diablo (the same way 15 bucks is too moch for a game like WoW IMO). With 10 bucks from each player blizzard can pay all the servers and the maintenance team and still light their cigarrettes with 100 dollars bills.
So you're against the idea of P2P and DLC, but WON'T complain about it when *laugh* Blizzard is forced into it because other companies have? Excuse my insolence, but Blizzard is one of the most successful game developers out there, with an MMO that generates immense cash flow. I highly doubt they're in the same bracket as other game developers who need to scrape and search for every bit of publisher's money they can find.
Well, just ask yourself what could the term "monetizing features" POSSIBLY refer to. Obviously it means in past games features that were included as part of the base program are to be made a cash cow, whether that means extra storage, character slots or what have you. Which in my mind is simply abuse of the playerbase, with the kind of revenue stream Blizzard has its very little to them to have an extra couple of character slots or a few more pixels of in game storage.
The fact that these might be the types of features "monetized" (and I find it tough to imagine what else that could refer to) is them simply just looking to take the average gamer by the ankles, hold them upside down and vigorously shake them until every last cent tumbles into their holds.
It's not about how rich Blizzard is, they could be pulling in 10x as much as they are from WoW as it is. But if they are not gaining decent revenue from Diablo 3 then why would they make it in the first place. What you're saying is that since they are filthy rich they should just make D3 and make no revenue off it? There is no sound business strategy there. That negates the point of the product to begin with for them, regardless of if they need the money or not.
And when I say "must be preparing to do because other companies have" I mean that in the most sarcastic sense possible.
Do I think they should try to make a profit off D3?
Yes, that's the point of it to begin with for them and secures the future of the franchise.
Do I think they are attempting to cash cow Diablo until they've sent us all into poverty like you seem to believe?
No, Blizzard has always been reasonable to the consumer and it's the reason they are where they are today and they know it. Building trust with your consumers helps your company more than cheating them out of a couple bucks ever will and they know that and is why they are where they are now. It's the same principle with Valve, be honest with your consumers and don't cheat them, in the end you'll have a larger userbase and sell a substantial amount of more products now and in the future. This business tactic has worked for both companies, the two biggest heavy hitters in the PC gaming industry, and unless suddenly the entire management team has been switched with greedy morons who can't see the big picture there's no reason why this won't continue in the future. Do you know why all those other companies are so small comparatively? For the stupid mistakes and errors of short-sighted judgement regarding consumers, over-hyping and over-pricing mediocre (at best) products to try and milk our wallets.
What kind of effect do you think alienating and using the guilty until proven innocent method will have on said business/consumer relationship? It'll drive a wedge between the two and you'll get exactly what you're so adamantly attacking.
Blizzard has always delivered quality products well worth their fee and that's why they're filthy rich. If they do something I'll trust them until they show me a reason not to.
That's just a matter of opinion and choice though. What you suggest is like putting a shock collar on a loyal dog and shocking him repeatedly simply because he has teeth and could potentially bite you in the future, it's not my style.
And no I'm not blindly following them, I will assess any choice they make and choose my stance with them accordingly.
I never said they should make no profit. In fact, from an economic perspective, nickel and diming your playerbase is MORE effective than large single purchases because its psychologically less painful to pay small amounts over time than one big lump sum. Its how many economic functions of society work.
Vivendi owns the controlling stake in Activision Blizzard. They also were one of the reasons a game series like the Elder Scrolls is seen as going downhill, since Bethesda is owned by them, and their latest release Oblivion was seen as a critical failure due to its dumbing down from previous games, following the consolization of Morrowind. However, due to the namesake and brand loyalty, it still sold well. Now though, with Bethesda developing Fallout 3, the critics and playerbase are VASTLY more cautious and nervous about the outcome.
The problem with a company having multiple successes, especially on the order of magnitude like WoW, is it starts to color their perceptions. Soon, ALL games made by them will resemble their biggest success, which will cause the playerbase to become alienated, critical consensus will reflect this, and their customer loyalty will dissappear. For some, that happens quicker than others, usually because they can see the trends before they occur.
Remember the dismal failure of Hellgate: London and that it was in large part developed by ex-Blizzard employees who had been on the original Diablo team.
As to your dog collar analogy, that's pretty flawed. What I'm suggesting is not guilty until proven innocent, what I'm saying is assume innocence while preparing for guilt. Based on the last few game releases I've personally seen, such as Spore, the games never live up to their hype, despite the tantalization provided by conventions and movie clips. Game previews are just like movie previews, they showcase the best parts without showing the sordid underbelly.
So in essence, I'm cautious and hope that D3 lives up to my expectations. Given that many of the current design decisions sound like terrible ideas and a step backwards, that's not likely. If I love the game upon release, I'll of course eat my words and apologize publicly lol. But based on what I've seen not just here but among the entire industry, I'm pretty sure my words will stick.
I never said they should make no profit. In fact, from an economic perspective, nickel and diming your playerbase is MORE effective than large single purchases because its psychologically less painful to pay small amounts over time than one big lump sum. Its how many economic functions of society work.
Vivendi owns the controlling stake in Activision Blizzard. They also were one of the reasons a game series like the Elder Scrolls is seen as going downhill, since Bethesda is owned by them, and their latest release Oblivion was seen as a critical failure due to its dumbing down from previous games, following the consolization of Morrowind. However, due to the namesake and brand loyalty, it still sold well. Now though, with Bethesda developing Fallout 3, the critics and playerbase are VASTLY more cautious and nervous about the outcome.
The problem with a company having multiple successes, especially on the order of magnitude like WoW, is it starts to color their perceptions. Soon, ALL games made by them will resemble their biggest success, which will cause the playerbase to become alienated, critical consensus will reflect this, and their customer loyalty will dissappear. For some, that happens quicker than others, usually because they can see the trends before they occur.
Remember the dismal failure of Hellgate: London and that it was in large part developed by ex-Blizzard employees who had been on the original Diablo team.
As to your dog collar analogy, that's pretty flawed. What I'm suggesting is not guilty until proven innocent, what I'm saying is assume innocence while preparing for guilt. Based on the last few game releases I've personally seen, such as Spore, the games never live up to their hype, despite the tantalization provided by conventions and movie clips. Game previews are just like movie previews, they showcase the best parts without showing the sordid underbelly.
So in essence, I'm cautious and hope that D3 lives up to my expectations. Given that many of the current design decisions sound like terrible ideas and a step backwards, that's not likely. If I love the game upon release, I'll of course eat my words and apologize publicly lol. But based on what I've seen not just here but among the entire industry, I'm pretty sure my words will stick.
I can completely agree with you with Bethesda. The Elder Scrolls were never meant for console and what they did to that series with Oblivion has changed my stance with them to never buy a title until it's out and reviewed and I've had my friends opinions. Oblivion was a punch in the face to any TES fan.
As for them imitating their biggest success, apart from them putting in a couple easter eggs as always for a blizzard game (slow time and disintegrate being a nod towards SC2 and couple skills appearing from WoW) D3 appears to be very original and a nice breath of fresh air. Sure D2 with improved visuals would be fun, but at the end of the day if I want D2 I'll play D2. Blizzard is notorious for making funny references to their other franchises within each franchise. Most enjoy it, some get pissed and find it threatening.
And Hellgate: London... I don't like talking about that "game". I can agree with this failure. But that much was obvious when we saw that Flagship studios use "from the creators of Diablo" as their main marketing campaign, instead of their actual game. Flagship tripped and fell right from the beginning and was not to be trusted. In actuality very little of Flagships staff had much to do with Diablo.
Spore I never trusted from the beginning and to this day I'm glad I never bought, that game was terrible.
Still I really enjoy seeing these new concepts and innovations Blizzard are coming up with for D3 and I'm looking forward to it. I haven't trusted many companies out there from the start and the ones I have still haven't let me down. So it appears we agree with just about everything but the Diablo 3 situation lol, oh well.
I'll gladly pay once. For the game, and nothing else. If there is so much as one thing that enhances my character's combat abilities/trading viability that is only available by paying extra, I won't be buying diablo 3. That would be the last straw.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
The gaming industry needs to evolve! On one side you have the "single player/offline" games and on the other the MMO games and I think Blizzard is perfectly trying to fit Diablo 3 into the "next generation" which is a mix of both!
The pay once method worked fine when offline playing was a standard. Now I hardly ever play "offline" anymore! Nowadays you want to be connected all the time! So why not invest further into the "online" aspect of a game? And by doing so, how can a company offer better online services when you want to keep paying the same price of the 10 year old "offline" standard?
They have to come up with some way to make money out of it! Battle.net is great! But for old games! There are much greater requirements for online gameplay nowadays and Battle.net is not up-to-date!
I don't want Blizzard to "forget" about Battle.net leaving it to cheaters and botters to do what they want. But how can you even consider demand this constant service for years and for free? But still, Diablo 3 will not be P2P. So they will have to come up with better ways to make money in order to keep the online aspect of Diablo 3 alive for years to come.
I much rather pay and be able to demand something of a company then to just rely on their good will.
noone really knows (not even blizzard) what will be monetized if anything.
so we cant really dig too deep into this yet.
depending on what they decide to charge will decide my view
one way or the other, im playing diablo 3.
The gaming industry needs to evolve! On one side you have the "single player/offline" games and on the other the MMO games and I think Blizzard is perfectly trying to fit Diablo 3 into the "next generation" which is a mix of both!
The pay once method worked fine when offline playing was a standard. Now I hardly ever play "offline" anymore! Nowadays you want to be connected all the time! So why not invest further into the "online" aspect of a game? And by doing so, how can a company offer better online services when you want to keep paying the same price of the 10 year old "offline" standard?
They have to come up with some way to make money out of it! Battle.net is great! But for old games! There are much greater requirements for online gameplay nowadays and Battle.net is not up-to-date!
I don't want Blizzard to "forget" about Battle.net leaving it to cheaters and botters to do what they want. But how can you even consider demand this constant service for years and for free? But still, Diablo 3 will not be P2P. So they will have to come up with better ways to make money in order to keep the online aspect of Diablo 3 alive for years to come.
I much rather pay and be able to demand something of a company then to just rely on their good will.
How much would you pay per month for the use if AIM on top of your Internet subscription? $5, $10, $15?
Battle.Net is one thing, and that is a player-matching and chat service, just like Steam or any other game who offers free online play via instanced "universes", Blizzard isn't the only one to do this.
And, short of MMOs, I have YET to see any other game company QQing about having to monetize features to help pay for upkeep of servers. The fact of the matter is that, monetarily, once you have the server farm setup for a system like Battle.Net, you don't need to invest much money except for maintenance and upgrades, which are ALREADY factored in to the cost of development.
And the argument of the WoW money stream is VERY valid, as any successful developer uses funds from past success to pay forward the development of future titles. The fact that Blizzard is pulling in over $100 million a MONTH in subscriber fees tells me they could give away D3 for free and still come out WAAY ahead!
Do I expect that? No, of course not, they do deserve monetary compensation for their intellectual property and development time. However, for them to act like they are on a shoestring budget and that monetizing features is the only way to go forward is unbe-fucking-lievable. Add to that the fact that most likely, the game will ship with bugs, balance and play issues, and that you'll need to download twenty patches or so says to me that if I go and spend $50 on a game, I expect it to be a finished product, not a working Beta using the playerbase to finish ironing out the kinks. Game developers have gotten VERY lazy.
The day you agree to pay for stuff like that is the day AIM starts charging per character sent and received fees. Don't be sheep.
How much would you pay per month for the use if AIM on top of your Internet subscription? $5, $10, $15?
Do you think AIM is provided by the good heart of the company? It has ads on it! That's how they make money with it and still make us feel like they provide it for free.
Quote from "Kaleban" »
Battle.Net is one thing, and that is a player-matching and chat service, just like Steam or any other game who offers free online play via instanced "universes", Blizzard isn't the only one to do this.
The thing is: It won't be Battle.net. It will be Battle.net 2.0! Who knows what new and innovative services they will offer?
Besides, battle.net is forgotten, overrun by goldsellers, bots and hacks! This is the service you get for having payed $50 bucks 8 years ago. You can't expect Blizzard to do much here.
Quote from "Kaleban" »
...once you have the server farm setup for a system like Battle.Net, you don't need to invest much money except for maintenance and upgrades...
I disagree because of what I said before. Battle.net cannot be a "forgotten" server. It needs constant care! We all know MMOs suffer constantly with bots, hacks and goldselling! It's a constant battle in order to offer a decent service.
Quote from "Kaleban" »
And the argument of the WoW money stream is VERY valid, as any successful developer uses funds from past success to pay forward the development of future titles. The fact that Blizzard is pulling in over $100 million a MONTH in subscriber fees tells me they could give away D3 for free and still come out WAAY ahead!
Agreed. Diablo 3 is already payed for. But what will Diablo 3 be paying for in the future of Blizzard? Blizzard is not stopping here. I'm very sure they are already thinking about their next MMO and who will pay for that? Diablo 3 won't be just "let's do this game just for fun and for the fans". They want to profit from it!
But let's face it, Diablo 3 won't be as profitable as they want it to be. So they have to offer something else which I'm still expecting to be announced with Bnet 2.
Quote from "Kaleban" »
Do I expect that? No, of course not, they do deserve monetary compensation for their intellectual property and development time. However, for them to act like they are on a shoestring budget and that monetizing features is the only way to go forward is unbe-fucking-lievable. Add to that the fact that most likely, the game will ship with bugs, balance and play issues, and that you'll need to download twenty patches or so says to me that if I go and spend $50 on a game, I expect it to be a finished product, not a working Beta using the playerbase to finish ironing out the kinks. Game developers have gotten VERY lazy.
Games get more complex in graphics, gameplay, physics and multiplaying features and the time to make them only gets shorter! See Hellgate London as an example.
Quote from "Kaleban" »
The day you agree to pay for stuff like that is the day AIM starts charging per character sent and received fees. Don't be sheep.
We don't know yet what we'll be paying for with the new Battle.net 2.0. So we can't yet unjustify their argument. I do agree though that they shouldn't have said that they need to monetize things alone and not release information about the new battle.net.
It all comes down to the fact that we don't know yet what else will Battle.net 2.0 provide. Only then we can discuss whether charging for extra features will be justified.
I gladly pay something if it keeps the service up and running for more than 1-2 years. What happened in D2 after 2 years.. it became unpleasant to play in bnet.
The idea of paying a little ammount of money to keep the quality of the server is great, D2 has tons of hacks, bots, dupes because the services are free and blizzard is not motivated to spent money in a game that dont bring profit for them anymore just to get rid of cheaters. When you pay they are forced to use the money to improve the quality of the service.
But the fee must be MINIMAL, below the point that a costumer finds it reasonable. 15 dollars per month for WoW is an absurd IMO (you pay 45(?) for the full game), of course i could pay for the fee but i dont because i think its too high.
If Blizzard charges for using b.net2 i wont pay more than US$3/month for the services, i'm still going to be pissed off for the charges, not because the cost but because i live in another country and its aways a pain to use international credit cards for the transactions. There is other kinds of payments like prepaid cards etc but that aways comes with other problems (importation fees i.e.).
How much would you pay per month for the use if AIM on top of your Internet subscription? $5, $10, $15?
Battle.Net is one thing, and that is a player-matching and chat service, just like Steam or any other game who offers free online play via instanced "universes", Blizzard isn't the only one to do this.
And, short of MMOs, I have YET to see any other game company QQing about having to monetize features to help pay for upkeep of servers. The fact of the matter is that, monetarily, once you have the server farm setup for a system like Battle.Net, you don't need to invest much money except for maintenance and upgrades, which are ALREADY factored in to the cost of development.
And the argument of the WoW money stream is VERY valid, as any successful developer uses funds from past success to pay forward the development of future titles. The fact that Blizzard is pulling in over $100 million a MONTH in subscriber fees tells me they could give away D3 for free and still come out WAAY ahead!
Do I expect that? No, of course not, they do deserve monetary compensation for their intellectual property and development time. However, for them to act like they are on a shoestring budget and that monetizing features is the only way to go forward is unbe-fucking-lievable. Add to that the fact that most likely, the game will ship with bugs, balance and play issues, and that you'll need to download twenty patches or so says to me that if I go and spend $50 on a game, I expect it to be a finished product, not a working Beta using the playerbase to finish ironing out the kinks. Game developers have gotten VERY lazy.
The day you agree to pay for stuff like that is the day AIM starts charging per character sent and received fees. Don't be sheep.
This was a fantastic post. Nice job man
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
Yea it was except for the part where he says that using WoW's money for D3 is a valid reason as to why Diablo 3 shouldn't be charged more.
Sure I do not want to spend more money but that reason is utterly stupid because D3 is a whole new game and genre from WoW. It deserves to makes it's own money not using WoW's money to bring it over to D3.
Yea it was except for the part where he says that using WoW's money for D3 is a valid reason as to why Diablo 3 shouldn't be charged more.
Sure I do not want to spend more money but that reason is utterly stupid because D3 is a whole new game and genre from WoW. It deserves to makes it's own money not using WoW's money to bring it over to D3.
Maybe if you had read the end of the post you would realize that he was actually shooting down that argument.
"No, of course not, they do deserve monetary compensation for their intellectual property and development time. However, for them to act like they are on a shoestring budget and that monetizing features is the only way to go forward is unbe-fucking-lievable."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
The problem isn't what they're considering charging for, its that they ARE considering it at all.
Look at Guild Wars. It still is running, off of expansion money, pretty sizable playerbase for a startup, and the only things they charge for are additional things like character slots that are permanent and give no additional advantage to those who do not similarly pay.
I've said in multiple posts that I don't mind pay for content that renders no in game advantage and is more or less cosmetic in nature. But paying a monthly fee is out of the question, given the scope of the game. You pay $15 a month for WoW, and its a massive free-form world with up to 40 man raids and huge diversity.
Diablo will at MOST be a 4 man instanced game and a GUI chat service. Not to mention that I'm not all that impressed by the game's graphics or GFX, when compared to current generation games.
Maybe people's expectations have been lower considering all the dreck that is passed off as games these days, but when you're up against next gen games like Call of Duty, the Tom Clancy stuff, and a bunch of competitors who want your market share, you'd think the game they release would be more than just a graphically different WoW with all instance play in small parties.
If you all want to just sit back and take it be my guest, but I will use my right to say what I want and complain about what I see as a step backward, not forwards, and hopefully effect the outcome positively. If Blizzard decides to go with a P2P format, then they lose me as a customer is all. I'm sure its no big deal to them, they've got 9 million people who are slaves to their power. But I can at least make my point.
You seem to be getting the wrong idea about what was said.
They are not saying that they are going to charge a monthly fee for Diablo 3. They are saying there are possibly features (and I mentioned above about those features having no compromise to the game and you yourself mentioned additional character slots) that could require a fee. Actually they never even used the term monthly fee/subscription here and were talking about specifically features the entire time.
For all we know this could be purchasing additional character slots for your account.
No I'm really not. I fully understand the situation, I'm just saying that its a slippery slope, and once people accept the idea of DLC and P2P, that a monthly "Battle.Net maintenance fee" is not far behind.
By adamantly reinforcing the idea that the playerbase will not accept that, its possible to avert such a disaster before its considered. However, complaints lodged AFTER THE FACT are impotent at best.
And given the state of the economy, and the industry's move into microtransactions as a money machine, its not hard to imagine Blizzard creating a deception of optional when its actually required.
Monetizing Features doesn't translate to downloadable content and P2P to me, sorry. They haven't asked anyone to accept the idea of either one of those things and I am against DLC (for a fee) and P2P when it comes to Diablo specifically. I'm not going to complain to Blizzard about something they haven't done and that they must be preparing to do because others companies have.
I can understand people voicing their opinion that they are against a monthly fee, hell I completely agree. What I can't understand is people making empty threats and screaming at Blizzard for something they haven't done and have yet to say they are thinking about doing. They didn't once say they are considering DLC or P2P.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
So you're against the idea of P2P and DLC, but WON'T complain about it when *laugh* Blizzard is forced into it because other companies have? Excuse my insolence, but Blizzard is one of the most successful game developers out there, with an MMO that generates immense cash flow. I highly doubt they're in the same bracket as other game developers who need to scrape and search for every bit of publisher's money they can find.
Well, just ask yourself what could the term "monetizing features" POSSIBLY refer to. Obviously it means in past games features that were included as part of the base program are to be made a cash cow, whether that means extra storage, character slots or what have you. Which in my mind is simply abuse of the playerbase, with the kind of revenue stream Blizzard has its very little to them to have an extra couple of character slots or a few more pixels of in game storage.
The fact that these might be the types of features "monetized" (and I find it tough to imagine what else that could refer to) is them simply just looking to take the average gamer by the ankles, hold them upside down and vigorously shake them until every last cent tumbles into their holds.
Like i said in my post, its all about HOW MUCH they charge (assuming it would be montly fees, wich i doubt).
We dont have a exact answer from blizzard so we cant crucify them yet.
But assuming that there will be fees 10 buck a month is TOO MUCH for a game like diablo (the same way 15 bucks is too moch for a game like WoW IMO). With 10 bucks from each player blizzard can pay all the servers and the maintenance team and still light their cigarrettes with 100 dollars bills.
It's not about how rich Blizzard is, they could be pulling in 10x as much as they are from WoW as it is. But if they are not gaining decent revenue from Diablo 3 then why would they make it in the first place. What you're saying is that since they are filthy rich they should just make D3 and make no revenue off it? There is no sound business strategy there. That negates the point of the product to begin with for them, regardless of if they need the money or not.
And when I say "must be preparing to do because other companies have" I mean that in the most sarcastic sense possible.
Do I think they should try to make a profit off D3?
Yes, that's the point of it to begin with for them and secures the future of the franchise.
Do I think they are attempting to cash cow Diablo until they've sent us all into poverty like you seem to believe?
No, Blizzard has always been reasonable to the consumer and it's the reason they are where they are today and they know it. Building trust with your consumers helps your company more than cheating them out of a couple bucks ever will and they know that and is why they are where they are now. It's the same principle with Valve, be honest with your consumers and don't cheat them, in the end you'll have a larger userbase and sell a substantial amount of more products now and in the future. This business tactic has worked for both companies, the two biggest heavy hitters in the PC gaming industry, and unless suddenly the entire management team has been switched with greedy morons who can't see the big picture there's no reason why this won't continue in the future. Do you know why all those other companies are so small comparatively? For the stupid mistakes and errors of short-sighted judgement regarding consumers, over-hyping and over-pricing mediocre (at best) products to try and milk our wallets.
What kind of effect do you think alienating and using the guilty until proven innocent method will have on said business/consumer relationship? It'll drive a wedge between the two and you'll get exactly what you're so adamantly attacking.
Blizzard has always delivered quality products well worth their fee and that's why they're filthy rich. If they do something I'll trust them until they show me a reason not to.
That's just a matter of opinion and choice though. What you suggest is like putting a shock collar on a loyal dog and shocking him repeatedly simply because he has teeth and could potentially bite you in the future, it's not my style.
And no I'm not blindly following them, I will assess any choice they make and choose my stance with them accordingly.
Vivendi owns the controlling stake in Activision Blizzard. They also were one of the reasons a game series like the Elder Scrolls is seen as going downhill, since Bethesda is owned by them, and their latest release Oblivion was seen as a critical failure due to its dumbing down from previous games, following the consolization of Morrowind. However, due to the namesake and brand loyalty, it still sold well. Now though, with Bethesda developing Fallout 3, the critics and playerbase are VASTLY more cautious and nervous about the outcome.
The problem with a company having multiple successes, especially on the order of magnitude like WoW, is it starts to color their perceptions. Soon, ALL games made by them will resemble their biggest success, which will cause the playerbase to become alienated, critical consensus will reflect this, and their customer loyalty will dissappear. For some, that happens quicker than others, usually because they can see the trends before they occur.
Remember the dismal failure of Hellgate: London and that it was in large part developed by ex-Blizzard employees who had been on the original Diablo team.
As to your dog collar analogy, that's pretty flawed. What I'm suggesting is not guilty until proven innocent, what I'm saying is assume innocence while preparing for guilt. Based on the last few game releases I've personally seen, such as Spore, the games never live up to their hype, despite the tantalization provided by conventions and movie clips. Game previews are just like movie previews, they showcase the best parts without showing the sordid underbelly.
So in essence, I'm cautious and hope that D3 lives up to my expectations. Given that many of the current design decisions sound like terrible ideas and a step backwards, that's not likely. If I love the game upon release, I'll of course eat my words and apologize publicly lol. But based on what I've seen not just here but among the entire industry, I'm pretty sure my words will stick.
I can completely agree with you with Bethesda. The Elder Scrolls were never meant for console and what they did to that series with Oblivion has changed my stance with them to never buy a title until it's out and reviewed and I've had my friends opinions. Oblivion was a punch in the face to any TES fan.
As for them imitating their biggest success, apart from them putting in a couple easter eggs as always for a blizzard game (slow time and disintegrate being a nod towards SC2 and couple skills appearing from WoW) D3 appears to be very original and a nice breath of fresh air. Sure D2 with improved visuals would be fun, but at the end of the day if I want D2 I'll play D2. Blizzard is notorious for making funny references to their other franchises within each franchise. Most enjoy it, some get pissed and find it threatening.
And Hellgate: London... I don't like talking about that "game". I can agree with this failure. But that much was obvious when we saw that Flagship studios use "from the creators of Diablo" as their main marketing campaign, instead of their actual game. Flagship tripped and fell right from the beginning and was not to be trusted. In actuality very little of Flagships staff had much to do with Diablo.
Spore I never trusted from the beginning and to this day I'm glad I never bought, that game was terrible.
Still I really enjoy seeing these new concepts and innovations Blizzard are coming up with for D3 and I'm looking forward to it. I haven't trusted many companies out there from the start and the ones I have still haven't let me down. So it appears we agree with just about everything but the Diablo 3 situation lol, oh well.
I'll gladly pay once. For the game, and nothing else. If there is so much as one thing that enhances my character's combat abilities/trading viability that is only available by paying extra, I won't be buying diablo 3. That would be the last straw.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
The pay once method worked fine when offline playing was a standard. Now I hardly ever play "offline" anymore! Nowadays you want to be connected all the time! So why not invest further into the "online" aspect of a game? And by doing so, how can a company offer better online services when you want to keep paying the same price of the 10 year old "offline" standard?
They have to come up with some way to make money out of it! Battle.net is great! But for old games! There are much greater requirements for online gameplay nowadays and Battle.net is not up-to-date!
I don't want Blizzard to "forget" about Battle.net leaving it to cheaters and botters to do what they want. But how can you even consider demand this constant service for years and for free? But still, Diablo 3 will not be P2P. So they will have to come up with better ways to make money in order to keep the online aspect of Diablo 3 alive for years to come.
I much rather pay and be able to demand something of a company then to just rely on their good will.
so we cant really dig too deep into this yet.
depending on what they decide to charge will decide my view
one way or the other, im playing diablo 3.
How much would you pay per month for the use if AIM on top of your Internet subscription? $5, $10, $15?
Battle.Net is one thing, and that is a player-matching and chat service, just like Steam or any other game who offers free online play via instanced "universes", Blizzard isn't the only one to do this.
And, short of MMOs, I have YET to see any other game company QQing about having to monetize features to help pay for upkeep of servers. The fact of the matter is that, monetarily, once you have the server farm setup for a system like Battle.Net, you don't need to invest much money except for maintenance and upgrades, which are ALREADY factored in to the cost of development.
And the argument of the WoW money stream is VERY valid, as any successful developer uses funds from past success to pay forward the development of future titles. The fact that Blizzard is pulling in over $100 million a MONTH in subscriber fees tells me they could give away D3 for free and still come out WAAY ahead!
Do I expect that? No, of course not, they do deserve monetary compensation for their intellectual property and development time. However, for them to act like they are on a shoestring budget and that monetizing features is the only way to go forward is unbe-fucking-lievable. Add to that the fact that most likely, the game will ship with bugs, balance and play issues, and that you'll need to download twenty patches or so says to me that if I go and spend $50 on a game, I expect it to be a finished product, not a working Beta using the playerbase to finish ironing out the kinks. Game developers have gotten VERY lazy.
The day you agree to pay for stuff like that is the day AIM starts charging per character sent and received fees. Don't be sheep.
Do you think AIM is provided by the good heart of the company? It has ads on it! That's how they make money with it and still make us feel like they provide it for free.
The thing is: It won't be Battle.net. It will be Battle.net 2.0! Who knows what new and innovative services they will offer?
Besides, battle.net is forgotten, overrun by goldsellers, bots and hacks! This is the service you get for having payed $50 bucks 8 years ago. You can't expect Blizzard to do much here.
I disagree because of what I said before. Battle.net cannot be a "forgotten" server. It needs constant care! We all know MMOs suffer constantly with bots, hacks and goldselling! It's a constant battle in order to offer a decent service.
Agreed. Diablo 3 is already payed for. But what will Diablo 3 be paying for in the future of Blizzard? Blizzard is not stopping here. I'm very sure they are already thinking about their next MMO and who will pay for that? Diablo 3 won't be just "let's do this game just for fun and for the fans". They want to profit from it!
But let's face it, Diablo 3 won't be as profitable as they want it to be. So they have to offer something else which I'm still expecting to be announced with Bnet 2.
Games get more complex in graphics, gameplay, physics and multiplaying features and the time to make them only gets shorter! See Hellgate London as an example.
We don't know yet what we'll be paying for with the new Battle.net 2.0. So we can't yet unjustify their argument. I do agree though that they shouldn't have said that they need to monetize things alone and not release information about the new battle.net.
It all comes down to the fact that we don't know yet what else will Battle.net 2.0 provide. Only then we can discuss whether charging for extra features will be justified.
We just have to wait and see whats coming up.
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
But the fee must be MINIMAL, below the point that a costumer finds it reasonable. 15 dollars per month for WoW is an absurd IMO (you pay 45(?) for the full game), of course i could pay for the fee but i dont because i think its too high.
If Blizzard charges for using b.net2 i wont pay more than US$3/month for the services, i'm still going to be pissed off for the charges, not because the cost but because i live in another country and its aways a pain to use international credit cards for the transactions. There is other kinds of payments like prepaid cards etc but that aways comes with other problems (importation fees i.e.).
This was a fantastic post. Nice job man
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
Yea it was except for the part where he says that using WoW's money for D3 is a valid reason as to why Diablo 3 shouldn't be charged more.
Sure I do not want to spend more money but that reason is utterly stupid because D3 is a whole new game and genre from WoW. It deserves to makes it's own money not using WoW's money to bring it over to D3.
Maybe if you had read the end of the post you would realize that he was actually shooting down that argument.
"No, of course not, they do deserve monetary compensation for their intellectual property and development time. However, for them to act like they are on a shoestring budget and that monetizing features is the only way to go forward is unbe-fucking-lievable."
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
It has already been told it will be a Battle.net 2.0!
All your arguments are completely flawed if you base it on the how battle.net works today for Diablo 2!