BlizzForums

BlizzForums (http://www.blizzforums.com/index.php)
-   StarCraft Discussion (http://www.blizzforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Activision, you worry me (http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=23428)

FoxSpirit 02-13-2009 06:17 PM

Activision, you worry me
 
You know we have this awesome game upcoming, Starcraft II? And we were told that Activision will not have such a big say in it?
Those guys are so greedy it makes me... well, yeah, read:
http://kotaku.com/5153344/activision...legend-lawsuit

Monetizing selected battle.net features? I wonder who this came from? Though Rob Pardo imideately jumped in to ensure us that it was not what it sounded and I'll trust him on that.

I seriously wonder if the ActiBlizz merger was such a great idea, this also puts a stain on Blizzard, even if it's unrelated.

DemolitionSquid 02-13-2009 06:37 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxSpirit (Post 520405)
You know we have this awesome game upcoming, Starcraft II? And we were told that Activision will not have such a big say in it?
Those guys are so greedy it makes me... well, yeah, read:
http://kotaku.com/5153344/activision...legend-lawsuit

Monetizing selected battle.net features? I wonder who this came from? Though Rob Pardo imideately jumped in to ensure us that it was not what it sounded and I'll trust him on that.

I seriously wonder if the ActiBlizz merger was such a great idea, this also puts a stain on Blizzard, even if it's unrelated.

"Monetizing certain battle.net features" could mean shit like, you need to pay to be ranked in ladder. Battle.net itself will never be fee'd, that would quickly kill off 90% of their sales. It really does mean only certain, advanced features may have an extra cost associated with them.

Norfindel 02-13-2009 06:53 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Yeah, it's not like you need a lot of money to run servers for a P2P game... Asking money to do that for a game so popular won't probably kill it, but cause people to make their own Battle.net 2.0 server in linux as fast as they can :)

Overwatch 02-13-2009 07:10 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Why should I have to pay a fee if I want to play competitive games? :/

Gradius 02-13-2009 07:20 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Overwatch (Post 520449)
Why should I have to pay a fee if I want to play competitive games? :/

Because running a server with thousands of players costs bandwidth, which costs money.

Triceron 02-13-2009 07:21 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Monetizing _select_ features...


World of Warcraft already does this with paid character transfers, paid gender/feature changes, paid character name changes, etc. These are considered monetized features that do not account for the actual game's gameplay or experience.

If Battle.net's account system becomes somehow tied to one profile that is given to a given player, rather than allowing players to make a billion free accounts, then they could add monetized features based on that. Or they could have a Premium account that offers some bonus incentives, like guild management stuff built into Battle.net.

Who knows what this could really mean. And BTW, that link sent me to Activision's Brutal Legend Lawsuit, was that somehow relevant to this?

Meteora 02-13-2009 07:35 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gradius (Post 520453)
Because running a server with thousands of players costs bandwidth, which costs money.

Indeed. I don't see what's so hard to reason with this. World of WarCraft has 11 million players on a single MMORPG; that's a milestone. Imagine paying off the maintenance fees for the servers used. Xbox Live costs money because it's a centralized server of 17 million. PlayStation Network doesn't cost money but it's not centralized as much (you can't see which friend is on playing another game while your playing your own game), I suspect that games played are company operated and supported. I have no idea about the Wii's Wi-Fi. Biggest difference is that server maintenance is especially high for MMORPGs.

Aside from that, I'm not sure what they really mean about monetizing Battlenet. We'll see soon enough.

Alex06 02-13-2009 07:38 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Every single feature available in War3 online should be free of charge in SC2, too. Anything new, fancy and advanced can cost money for all I care. So yeah, if you want your own clan with its images published in the game, you gotta pay, if you want to do special or important community stuff, you gotta pay. (Blizzard testing and publishing your maps on a special section if they are quality MP maps, changing your username, resetting your stats, having your broadcasted matches be commented on by who knows and/or featured, etc.)

Meteora 02-13-2009 07:41 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex06 (Post 520463)
Every single feature available in War3 online should be free of charge in SC2, too. Anything new, fancy and advanced can cost money for all I care. So yeah, if you want your own clan with its images published in the game, you gotta pay, if you want to do special or important community stuff, you gotta pay. (Blizzard testing and publishing your maps on a special section if they are quality MP maps, changing your username, resetting your stats, etc.)

I suppose it'll work depending on the features. But most people will still complain anyways about new features not being free. Understandable for username since people might abuse the power to change their username far too often if they don't pay.

Alex06 02-13-2009 07:44 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Meteora (Post 520468)
I suppose it'll work depending on the features. But most people will still complain anyways about new features not being free. Understandable for username since people might abuse the power to change their username far too often if they don't pay.

Exactly. I myself doubt that base features that both SC1 and War3 have (except custom clans with their own banners) would cost money, as they are free in any (or almost any) popular online game that ever existed so far. (Not counting MMORPGs like WoW)

SC2 itself will be different from WoW, as developpers won't alter the game gradually and add things to it like with WoW. Most new stuff will be added via expansions or patches after expansions are out (Like EA is intending to do with RA3, Blizz even mentionned possibly doing this, like they've done with TFT).

And if the servers cost...Well, that means there will be much less lag. They could even go and do this like with XBOX LIVE, and have special centralized servers for players who want to pay, and they'd have special competitive and community features others wouldn't have, including less laggy games, anti-cheat settings, etc. The cost wouldn't even have to be higher than around 175 bucks a year. (~15$ a month, what WoW costs now)

Overwatch 02-13-2009 07:47 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex06 (Post 520463)
Every single feature available in War3 online should be free of charge in SC2, too. Anything new, fancy and advanced can cost money for all I care.

That's all I was getting at. Sorry if I came off as ecstatic or irrational, but I was under the impression that Battle.net was a P2P service (which would use less bandwidth). World of Warcraft is hosted entirely by Blizzard, which obviously is going to cost a lot more in bandwidth and require a fee to be fiscally doable. I understand all of that. I just can't see a reason to charge for features that were free in another game's version of Battle.net.

It's like Microsoft trying to charge a monthly fee for Windows Live Gold a year or so ago when other online services like Gamespy and were free-of-charge (despite being supported by ads in the lobby - like Battle.net seems to be). This account type would allow players to voice chat in-game and use a matchmaking service (TrueSkill), along with a few other things I can't remember right off the bat. This was vehemently opposed by a vast majority of people. Microsoft later backpedaled and made Windows Live a free service.

I realize that Battle.net will have select features monetized, and I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with having to pay just so I can play a competitive game, though. Considering that "feature" was free on Warcraft 3 and Starcraft.

Again, I'm not trying to come off as rude, or seem like I can't comprehend why they would charge for select features. I'm just clarifying my earlier point.

Blazur 02-13-2009 07:51 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Activision is definitely becoming the new EA and is quickly being loathed by many. Their penchance for milking a franchise for all its worth is evident in titles like Guitar Hero and COD. But I hope Blizz has enough clout and foresight not to impose a contrived fee for b.net 2.0 when many of us are used to playing on it for free. Hell, that's one of the reasons I fell in love with the company in the first place...because of that arcitecture which allowed me to play online against other humans for the first time and with such ease.

As for Brutal Legend...something tells me that game will be crap anyways.

planetx 02-13-2009 07:53 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Who said some bnet features would cost money?
I've never heard of that, I think few sites reported something of that sort, but they had no source or anything. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Bobby wanted to do that, but I think blizzard won't allow it.

After all they will be selling million of copies of SC2 just for the first part and they can always use ads in bnet, so I don't think they would do such thing, it won't benefit them in the long run as people will start loosing confidence in blizzard!

Meteora 02-13-2009 08:01 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex06 (Post 520472)
Exactly. I myself doubt that base features that both SC1 and War3 have (except custom clans with their own banners) would cost money, as they are free in any (or almost any) popular online game that ever existed so far. (Not counting MMORPGs like WoW)

SC2 itself will be different from WoW, as developpers won't alter the game gradually and add things to it like with WoW. Most new stuff will be added via expansions or patches after expansions are out (Like EA is intending to do with RA3, Blizz even mentionned possibly doing this, like they've done with TFT).

And if the servers cost...Well, that means there will be much less lag. They could even go and do this like with XBOX LIVE, and have special centralized servers for players who want to pay, and they'd have special competitive and community features others wouldn't have, including less laggy games, anti-cheat settings, etc. The cost wouldn't even have to be higher than around 175 bucks a year. (~15$ a month, what WoW costs now)

Xbox Live costs $60 dollars a year which isn't very expensive compare to World of WarCraft; so the number figures can be something like that. It pisses me off whenever people say why should they pay for playing games. Christ, get a real job if you can't pay $5 per month. Most likely your internet will cost $60-80 dollars a month if your using cable; unless our house is getting ripped off by our ISP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overwatch (Post 520474)
That's all I was getting at. Sorry if I came off as ecstatic or irrational, but I was under the impression that Battle.net was a P2P service (which would use less bandwidth). World of Warcraft is hosted entirely by Blizzard, which obviously is going to cost a lot more in bandwidth and require a fee to be fiscally doable. I understand all of that. I just can't see a reason to charge for features that were free in another game's version of Battle.net.

Battle.net probably is a P2P server really. I think Blizzard only hosts the server for all the players to connect and communicate and that doesn't get as expensive as having to use bandwidth for actual gameplay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blazur (Post 520481)
Activision is definitely becoming the new EA and is quickly being loathed by many. Their penchance for milking a franchise for all its worth is evident in titles like Guitar Hero and COD. But I hope Blizz has enough clout and foresight not to impose a contrived fee for b.net 2.0 when many of us are used to playing on it for free. Hell, that's one of the reasons I fell in love with the company in the first place...because of that arcitecture which allowed me to play online against other humans for the first time and with such ease.

As for Brutal Legend...something tells me that game will be crap anyways.

It is beginning to concern me that Activision is starting to become like EA. I hope they do realise not to fuck with their franchise. It hurts their profit over the long term.

The only actual corporation that can get away with beating the crap out of their franchise is Nintendo.

Crazy_Jonny 02-13-2009 10:45 PM

Re: Activision, you worry me
 
Im not disagreeing with the points you guys make, but I still believe none of this will effect StarCraft II.
Quote:

Who said some bnet features would cost money?
I've never heard of that, I think few sites reported something of that sort, but they had no source or anything. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Bobby wanted to do that, but I think blizzard won't allow it.
Everything you need to know:
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/13/bl...et-monetizing/


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.