Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation

A post by Blizzard Community Manager Kevin 'Karune' Yu to the Battle.net Forums comments about speculation about subscription fees for the new Battle.net (thanks StarcraftWire.net). While he doesn't come out and say there will be no fees associated with the service, he does say it will be free to purchasers of StarCraft II: "When a player buys the StarCraft II box at retail, they will have the ability to play on the new Battle.net for free. For those listening to the latest Activision Blizzard conference call, Mike Morhaime also mentions it there as well."

View
58 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

58. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fees Jun 11, 2009, 17:57 The PC Warrior
 
Everyone else is the problem and not you? For someone who claims to think logically, I don't see any in that statement.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fees Jun 11, 2009, 14:57 Krovven
 
I'm one of the biggest internet douchebags...then you go on to say that I'm right.

Contradict yourself much?

Sorry if logic comes across as douchebaggery. I guess it depends on the interpretation. I happen to think the majority of posters on Blues are douchebags...can add another to that list now.

This comment was edited on Jun 11, 2009, 15:04.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fees Jun 8, 2009, 11:03 RollinThundr
 
All I've learned from this thread is Dagok is most likely one of the biggest internet douchebags I've seen in years and that for basic matchmaking BN2.0 will be free. Most likely they'll offer DLC or some form of ranked listings etc that they will gladly charge you an arm and a leg for. They can keep it afaic, Blizzard being one of the most overrated devs in the biz to begin with.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 15:24 Prez
 
I don't think anyone assumes that running Battlenet doesn't cost Blizzard some serious scratch. But the strength of the game and of the service itself ideally bring in the critical mass of gamers (and revenue) to make this a non-issue. So a fee would seem pointless. At least that's how I see it. Micro-transactions are a different matter, but as long as they don't give gameplay advantages to players who pay, there's nothing wrong with them in my book.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 13:45 Kajetan
 
Battle.net hosts the multiplayer games. And yes, there ARE quite a few costs maintaining this infrastructure.

But charging nothing for Battle.net was one of THE major sellings points for Blizzard games. They would be stupid to raise a fee for some quick buck, if this offends and alienates the majority of their customer and fan base. There is nothing to gain from this. The core functionality of Battle.net, hosting multiplayer matches and keeping track of your stats, should be kept free.

If they want to charge for some new features, not essential for joining the multiplayer community and getting the full multiplayer experience the game offers ... why not?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 13:08 Hump
 
It's nothing more than a matchmaking service and server infrastructure for online play.

I'm still not clear on that. Is it a "matchmaking service" or does Battlenet host the actual games? If its the latter and they keep your stats/inventory tracked then it does run into some costs due to bandwidth and manpower.
 
Avatar 10137
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."

- Jim Goad
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 12:25 Kajetan
 
Why would a subscription fee be so out of line then?

Because Battle.net is not a MMO. It's nothing more than a matchmaking service and server infrastructure for online play.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 11:12 Hump
 
can't say I ever played on Battlenet, mainly because I'm not into Blizzards games.

from what I've read about it it seems they essentially are running a MMOG operation (with a few differences) and have been doing so for free for years, no? Why would a subscription fee be so out of line then?
 
Avatar 10137
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."

- Jim Goad
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 07:27 Prez
 
If you think EA is any different today from 15 years ago, you are kidding yourself. I worked for EA almost 15 years ago, back when it was the "glory years" as some of you seem to think with Bullfrog, Maxis, Origin, Westwood, etc, etc...I know people that work there now.

I am sure you have insight that few of us have from your experience as an EA employee, Dagok, but I was referring to the facet of EA that is tangible and obvious to those of us who never worked there and simply bought their products - the way the treat their customers. I expect that EA from 15 years ago wanted money every bit as much as the EA today; it's the levels they would stoop to to go about getting it that has changed in my view. As a long time customer of theirs, the difference is night and day.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 07:22 Prez
 
I still want my dollar

I'll send it to you virtually.

Actually if you really want it, send me your Paypal account info.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 06:45 Dev
 
Dades:
If any computer related company can be called evil, I would say it would be MS.
Just from thier emails of evidence in some court cases alone you could say that. Like the ones where they outline the strategy of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Or there's always the way they rammed their OOXML "standard" through the ISO comittees in each voting country. Some of them they basically bribed people to stack the commitees with votes. The more you look into how that happened the more corrupt MS and the top people in the ISO group look. The top ISO people didn't even follow thier own bylaws in processing the appeals to what happened.

There are many known instances of MS essentially stealing IP from other companies, and then settling the ensuing cases out of court. Its actually cheaper for them to pony up the millions than it would be to make a legit agreement such as paying royalties on each copy of windows sold when they include IP in windows. A typical strategy is to invite a company into MS saying they are interested in purchasing some software or IP but they need more info, perhaps even some code, then they might say they aren't interested anymore, and put the stuff into thier software anyway.

Its also known that MS has used pirated warezed copies of software such as sound editors to make files for windows that then became distributed in every copy. Anyone can verify this themselves by examining some of the files in a copy of XP. I mean come on, you can't tell me that a company that makes billions in pure cash profit every quarter can't afford to buy a legit copy of a sound editing software program.

And what about all the weird EULA changes that MS has done throughout the years? Things such as if you write a negative review on certain MS products, you have to get it approved through MS before publishing. Or how they instantly own any proprietary IP or trade secrets sent through thier email servers (such as hotmail).

One could go on and on about this kinda topic. All of what I mentioned can be researched if you want to verify any of the particulars. Probably the issue about the pirated XP sound files on XP cds is the easiest to verify personally.



As a side note, I use MS products all the time. Mostly because I'm a serious gamer and windows is about the only PC platform suitable for serious gaming. However, I'm a realist. MS is in it to make money, and they don't really seem to much care about legality or ethical issues. Those silly fines in EU sound like a lot, and are the biggest that MS has ever gotten hit with, but they tend to make more pure cash profit in a month or two than they get fined. Basically MS keeps getting more extreme and almost no one ever tells them NO or STOP. Just like a spoiled kid, they keep taking more and more advantage of people.

This comment was edited on Jun 6, 2009, 06:54.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 05:00 Jerykk
 
EA now represents the pinnacle of "bad" game companies not because they put out bad games, but because they do not take chances. There are so many sequels, so many existing IPs, so few shreds of originality.

I don't know about that. EA has introduced a lot of new IP over the past few years. Crysis, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Dragon Age, Army of Two, Spore, etc. Sure, they still milk Madden, NFS, The Sims and other money-makers but at least they take some risks. Compare this to Activision/Vivendi who dumped anything even remotely risky and now stick to yearly Guitar Hero and Call of Duty releases.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 04:30 Krovven
 
EA the company is defined, like any company is, by it's business practices. They are vastly different today.

If you think EA is any different today from 15 years ago, you are kidding yourself. I worked for EA almost 15 years ago, back when it was the "glory years" as some of you seem to think with Bullfrog, Maxis, Origin, Westwood, etc, etc...I know people that work there now. Nothing has changed, it's still money first, end of story. That right there should show that Im not some bright-eyed kid thinking how great things are. In fact, it's the young punks that are the selfish, greedy bastards that want everything for free and have no appreciation for what the developers go through. They have no value of work or money. They think the developers don't have lives and do it purely for the love of making games. This wasn't true 15 years ago, it's not true now. They have families, they work longer hours than the majority of the people criticizing them and if they are really lucky they won't be laid off once the game is released.

I'd like to know what some of you do for a living to pay the bills, assuming you all arent still in grade-school being spoon fed by your parents. How would you like it if thousands of people started sending you emails, posting on your company forums, criticizing your every decision, telling you how much you sucked, how they wanted to kill you for changing something in a game. It's fucking ridiculous.

As for the topic...If you can really get "we are going to charge you a subscription fee" from "When a player buys the StarCraft II box at retail, they will have the ability to play on the new Battle.net for free." then yes, I say you are a complete and utter moron just looking to troll and spread your hate.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 03:02 Cutter
 
They're moving to a pay platform don't kid yourself. Free means the ability to find basic games. Forget rankings, player info, ability to play anything beyond basic multiplayer.

That's fine with me, because I never played a lot of multi-player Diablo in the first place. Far too many morons in PUGs anyway. I don't care about rankings, or player databases or that crap. A good game and some basic multiplayer with friends is all I ask anyway.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 02:59 PHJF
 
EA now represents the pinnacle of "bad" game companies not because they put out bad games, but because they do not take chances. There are so many sequels, so many existing IPs, so few shreds of originality. It's not their fault as they are just doing what anyone else would in their position: making safe games to protect the bottom line. I'm sure it sucks big time sinking millions of dollars into a game nobody buys. But it certainly doesn't do us the consumers any good to see the truly "good" developers get sucked into the system and smothered into formulaic development.

I guess what really matters is that companies like Looking Glass, Black Isle, Clover, etc. etc. went under. Poor sales from one game, consolidation from parent companies, whatever the reason... when nearly all of the best developing teams have closed shop, you can't help but question your faith in the industry.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 02:38 Dades
 
I still want my dollar  
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 02:37 Prez
 
To me it's like comparing Major League Baseball today and the way it was back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Yeah the game is the same, but boy howdy the business is done completely differently.

EA the company is defined, like any company is, by it's business practices. They are vastly different today. One cursory look at Spore is evidence of that in my opinion.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 02:26 Dades
 
It's a company that makes games so yeah to me it is largely the same. I didn't like all of their games back then and I don't now either. I don't view it as some entity with a soul and purpose or something silly. It's just a company with many employees making many games. Some are going to be terrible, others not. When they make a game or pursue a strategy I don't like, I don't purchase the game. It's really that simple. I don't treat any companies differently, they're all the same mechanism to make money in exchange for my entertainment.

This comment was edited on Jun 6, 2009, 02:27.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 02:23 Prez
 
People tend to wax heavy on the nostalgia around here, I remember plenty of crapper titles on the PC and console platforms years back.

That may be up for debate, but if you can keep a straight face and tell me that the EA today is the same company that they were when the owned Origin and Bullfrog, I'll mail you a dollar.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: On Battle.net 2.0 Fee Speculation Jun 6, 2009, 02:12 Dades
 
Hated by some, loved by no-one. Now ask me if I give two shits if people such as you, Verno, Turd, Yifes, n0slet, Riley, Zeph, or anyone else for that matter like me or not? Cus I really really don't.

Meh, if I ever see you actually interact like a normal human being in a topic here I will eat my underwear. You cannot respond with some gross insult or unwarranted condescension, you're like a robot built to piss off others. I will say that the quality of your build is fantastic, you are truely a perfect machine in that regard.

When people make logical posts I'll reply nicely

No you won't, I doubt you have ever done so in the history of the site. Take a step back and try to think of the last time you ever had a normal discussion in a thread here. When you're fighting with everyone all the time, maybe the problem isn't them.

There have been so many interviews in the last few days with Chet F and Doug V and they keep reiterating that they are not abandoning L4D and there is more content coming for it, as early as a few weeks from now. But the people that are screaming the loudest completely ignore it because it doesn't serve their hate filled rants.

Again no, you've been told many times why people aren't taking their word for it, you just ignore it. Click on the big 149 post L4D in the other topic to see the answers. Long story short, L4D has a history of late patches and unfulfilled content changes.

Remember when EA was a good company? I do. Microsoft?

I still play plenty of EA and MS games, I think they're fine companies. A company is just a company, it's not a person who is good or evil. People tend to wax heavy on the nostalgia around here, I remember plenty of crapper titles on the PC and console platforms years back. There's always going to be some good and some bad. The PC market itself is shrinking but I don't think it's fair to call it greed per se.

Regardless if Blizzard wants people to pay for battle.net then you can bet that people will pay. They offer some of the most enjoyable mass market PC games in the world and most gamers won't want to miss out on it.

This comment was edited on Jun 6, 2009, 02:23.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo