Blizzard's BattleNet will not be free

[Kranden]

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/11/blizzards-wilson-some-battle-net-features-to-be-monetized/

read this

[Icewalker]

Ok. Sounds like he said that Battlenet is not going to require a subscription, whereas some specific unusual features may require money to use, such that they can price other things lower and continue to release awesome patch-form material on a regular and free basis.

Fine by me.

Honestly, Blizzard wouldn't be making Battlenet require payment for any use, because that would completely screw them over and for good reason, and Blizzard has as far as I've seen given no impression of being particularly stupid before.

[Kranden]

each new patch is 10$


Is that what you mean? Thats even worse.

[Khosan]

each new patch is 10$


Is that what you mean? Thats even worse.

What? No. (http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-2008-rob-pardo-talks-battle-net-monetizing/)

[Destro_Yersul]

Ok, so how it works is that Battle.net is free to use, patches are free, and random extra stuff that you don't NEED will be charged for? *shrug* Ok, sure.

[Emperor Tippy]

Or they might go ad supported. Whenever you connect or before every match you have to watch a 30 second advertisement. That kind of demographic, they could make tons of money that way without charging the users.

[Demented]

Haven't checked Starcraft or Warcraft lately, but in D2 there's an ad at the top of the chatroom. It's far less inconvenient than having to watch a 30-second advertisement (which would, incidentally, be a good way to get people to never use Bnet again).

[Cynan Machae]

People need to read a bit before panicking ><

I don't see anything wrong to have to pay to use special feature that doesnt really give you any better Bnet experience.

[Emperor Tippy]

Haven't checked Starcraft or Warcraft lately, but in D2 there's an ad at the top of the chatroom. It's far less inconvenient than having to watch a 30-second advertisement (which would, incidentally, be a good way to get people to never use Bnet again).

Please, it wouldn't stop the vast majority of their market from using BNet. Especially if they play it up along the lines of "Well we really want to bring you good games with great content but those cost money, and keeping these multiplayer servers up and running costs us a ton of money as well. So it's either the ad's or paying a subscription. And if you want to pay a subscription then you don't have to see the ad's any more."

[Demented]

Blizzard's demographic, at least their US market, is solidified precisely because they don't do that. So, yes, the majority of that section of BNet vanishes. Poof. Gone. Vanished. Tumbleweeds. Maybe a gila lizard here and there. More tumbleweeds.

[Return of Lanky]

I doubt it would vanish. If more than a couple percent dropped off, I'd be shocked.

Let's face it... Battlenet is still one of the best Multiplayer services out there. I'd happily sit through a thirty second ad if the choice was between the ad or a subscription. I mean, come on... How often are you playing matches?

A Diablo II game can last hours, same with Diablo I and (presumably) Diablo III. Unless you get rushed, a Starcraft game can last forty minutes or more. Likewise Warcraft II and Warcraft III. How can you possibly justify the fact that your time is too important to watch a thirty second ad when you're getting ready to spend an hour or more killing demons or aliens?

[Kranden]

I think a lot of people would play on Private servers if they forced you to watch an ad between games, also Battlenet has already had a banner system in place for years so that's not what they are discussing.

[Querzis]

I think a lot of people would play on Private servers if they forced you to watch an ad between games, also Battlenet has already had a banner system in place for years so that's not what they are discussing.

The only thing we seems to be discussing is that you didnt read the article (or at least not very well). Battle.net will still be free and we'll get charged for some extra stuff. Definitly fine by me.

And though I absolutely dont believe a single second Blizzard is ever gonna do a 30 seconds ad before you can join battle.net, I would be incredibly surprised if someone stop using battle.net because of that! Come on Demented, every time I go on battle.net I play for one or two hours or more, who the hell wont be able to sit through a 30 seconds ad???? It already take a lot more time to just load all the recent game I know.

[Return of Lanky]

Again, I doubt it will be anywhere near "a lot". Thirty seconds sounds like a lot when you think about it now, but in practice you'll barely notice it. Get up to take a leak, and the ad's done long before you get back.

Especially if you're a chick.

[Poison_Fish]

People need to read a bit before panicking ><

I don't see anything wrong to have to pay to use special feature that doesnt really give you any better Bnet experience.

Agreed.

Blizz won't be charging us to use the basic service of battle.net. I honestly don't mind if others want to pay money for expanded use. If it's a one time buy feature, paying $5 or $10 for something you expect to be using a lot isn't so bad.

And they have assured us that D3 will not be subscription based(huzza).

[Demented]

How can you possibly justify the fact that your time is too important to watch a thirty second ad when you're getting ready to spend an hour or more killing demons or aliens?

For one thing:
People already complain when an automatch takes 10 seconds. Then you add a 30-second unskippable ad on top of that time... If it's played while you're waiting for the automatch, maybe that'd be better than watching the glowing 'Automatch' text (in the sense that elevator music is better than being stuck in a tight compartment with nothing to hear but yourself and the hum of oiled gears); however, ads in video games tend to be present in the most obnoxious way possible.

Also, most TV ads are individually not longer than 15 seconds. A more likely figure is 5-10 second ads. A 30-second ad is just insane.

For reference, one of my favorite Warcraft 3 experiences was the Dodgeball map. A match in that game generally lasted 5 minutes at most. 30 seconds would add up fast.

[Querzis]

For one thing:
People already complain when an automatch takes 10 seconds.

No, people complain when an automatch takes 2 minutes (which already happened a lot to me). If it takes ten seconds, you're lucky.


Then you add a 30-second unskippable ad on top of that time... If it's played while you're waiting for the automatch, maybe that'd be better than watching the glowing 'Automatch' text (in the sense that elevator music is better than being stuck in a tight compartment with nothing to hear but yourself and the hum of oiled gears); however, ads in video games tend to be present in the most obnoxious way possible.

Dunno which video games you're playing but it certainly was never that way to me.


Also, most TV ads are individually not longer than 15 seconds. A more likely figure is 5-10 second ads. A 30-second ad is just insane.

Ok I dont know if its different in...dunno where you're from but anyway here in Canada the average ad is 20 seconds long and I saw lots of 30 seconds ad. Just go look on Youtube.


For reference, one of my favorite Warcraft 3 experiences was the Dodgeball map. A match in that game generally lasted 5 minutes at most. 30 seconds would add up fast.

Look even a map like dodgeball pretty much take one minute before you got enough players and load. I dont know if you just dont realize it but you already gotta wait at least 30 seconds for most games in battle.net and battle.net is still one of the fastest one around.

I gotta wait at least 1 minute before I can play any map on Saga (and thats not counting the 3 minutes it take for the game to load), all the recent games on the computer I played got at least a 10 seconds load almost every times you freaking open a door and you complain about a 30 seconds ad?

And beside, I dunno why we're even having this argument when Blizzard would never do something like that.

[Leper_Kahn]

*screams*

Stop! More features will be offered that cost money! Not same features for money! In fact some new features will be free!

Just stop please.

[RPGuru1331]

Blizzard's demographic, at least their US market, is solidified precisely because they don't do that. So, yes, the majority of that section of BNet vanishes. Poof. Gone. Vanished. Tumbleweeds. Maybe a gila lizard here and there. More tumbleweeds.

Really? They solidified as a response to all those people who don't exist that have their game servers be ad supported? Weird.

[Crispy Dave]

IF they did do a 30 sec ad that would be anoying I know its anoying on hulu when your just watching clips. I doubt they would if they did anything like it they would put it on the loading screen why you wait.

O ya ads (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,437763,00.html) are everywhere in video games.

[Kizara]

"We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra."

Have faith in Blizzard, for they shall not let you down.

If anything, charging for a server change sounds like a great idea since it means that you won't have your US West/East server clogged with people from Asia (they will have to go play on the Asian server, as they should've in the first place).

[UnChosenOne]

I don't see anyreason for this crying about the Bnet would have some not free extra on it. So long that core is free there isn't any reason for bitching. You aren't mostlikely forced to buy extra thing like: "service that show's you the games between top-ranked professional's more easily".

[Winterwind]

If anything, charging for a server change sounds like a great idea since it means that you won't have your US West/East server clogged with people from Asia (they will have to go play on the Asian server, as they should've in the first place).Firstly, I fail to see how people playing on other servers creates any kind of inconveniance. Asians playing on our servers, in particular, strikes me as a good thing, for it improves the competition by increasing the average player skill level on our servers.

Secondly, such a thing as you describe would have further negative effects, such as making things like the GitP gaming groups much more difficult to pull off (I know, I would be affected by this after all).

Fortunately, I am quite sure that "server change" refers to transferring an already existing account to another server, not to being allowed to play on a different server at all, so it is not an issue.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Firstly, I fail to see how people playing on other servers creates any kind of inconveniance. Asians playing on our servers, in particular, strikes me as a good thing, for it improves the competition by increasing the average player skill level on our servers.

Secondly, such a thing as you describe would have further negative effects, such as making things like the GitP gaming groups much more difficult to pull off (I know, I would be affected by this after all).

Fortunately, I am quite sure that "server change" refers to transferring an already existing account to another server, not to being allowed to play on a different server at all, so it is not an issue.

I barely have enough money to consider buying SC2, and if I had to pay just to play on USWest with my bf and all my other friends, I'm not sure if I'd even want to bother.