Blizzard wants more money *charging for battle.net now*

Z

Zeus

Tank
Joined
May 25, 2003
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
0
I just about had it with blizzard's bullshit lately. First I heard that they wanna split starcraft 2 into 3 separate games..and on top of that, they want to start charging for battle.net.

http://www.destructoid.com/in-the-future-battle-net-will-cost-money-107378.phtml

I don't even know what to say..I've been a fan since diablo 1..I feel betrayed by blizzard's greed. It is unlikely I will buy another game from them ever again.
 
Valve is the last dev out there that doesn't try to screw over their PC customers.

Valve Stands Alone!
 
What

What

Charge for Battlenet

There will be blood.
 
French Ninja said:
Valve Stands Alone!
Click to expand...

Maybe not alone, I mean I know some smaller developers push the same ideals, but Valve certainly has the largest community behind them, and probbally the most influence.

It kinda sounds like the Hellgate setup, you can play like you do now for free, but extra features will cost yah, it does seem a bit odd, I dont know what blizzard does behind the scenes, but they make an unbelievable income from WoW, they must have the cash to build in a few community features to their stuff without charging, I mean, better service = more unit sales surely?
 
Blizzard has never stated they will charge to use Battle.net, only that they may charge to use some features of battle.net.

Nothing is confirmed.
 
Why would they charge for something like this? Millions of people throwing their paychecks at them every month not good enough?
 
I'll hold my tongue until I see how they plan on implementing this, but if I can't play Starcraft II online with a reasonable set of battle.net features without paying a monthly fee or something stupid like that, there's gonna be hell to pay.
 
Goddamnit, stop reposting this shit, k? Bother me again when any of it's actually confirmed, otherwise plz to be reading the damn boards.

Also, lol at this -

Wilson didn’t elaborate, but I think we all know how much Blizzard has been suffering the past few years. After the colossal failure that was once a promising game, World of Warcraft, Blizzard has had to revaluate its existence and make some tough spending decisions. It’s a shame that World of Warcraft never took off, but we have the massive success (over 15 million subscribers) of Star Wars: Galaxies to thank for that.
Click to expand...
 
Ennui said:
I'll hold my tongue until I see how they plan on implementing this, but if I can't play Starcraft II online with a reasonable set of battle.net features without paying a monthly fee or something stupid like that, there's gonna be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

Same here. I really don't require many features, though..I mean, hell look at the now Bnet. It's sluggish and useless in most cases. I'll be great with that.
 
Guess absolute power really does corrupt absolutely, they are turning into the alternative to EA, byy....becoming like EA...........
 
I could careless about them charging for battle.net because I for one am not that hyped about Wow, Starcraft 2, or Diablo 3.
 
Well I'm definitely not supporting that! financially crippled? tch.

(woo 1000 posts!)
 
PoeticRocker said:
I could careless about them charging for battle.net because I for one am not that hyped about Wow, Starcraft 2, or Diablo 3.
Click to expand...

Congratulations?

I more than likely won't pay for anything, but I won't hate them for doing what they SAY THEY MAY be doing. It's a dog eat dog world. Everything can't be free.
 
"financially crippled"?

Yeah cus you sure arent getting $15/month from the MILLIONS of idiots playing WoW.
 
While the extent is unknown, I'm pretty much against them charging for anything unless we're talking about stupid premium memberships that afford a few extra nifty features. And even that grinds my beans a bit.

They've been able to afford Battle.net for years now. It's not in need of being monetized with its load largely handled client-side. And considering how much money they make, I'm sure they can afford a matchmaking service without charging a dime on anything.
 
paying for 3 games is one thing but charging more for online playability is somethin else
might lose me as a customer
 
This is ridiculous they're even considering charging fees. More praise to Valve to what an awesome company they are and all they do for their customers. I hope there is a massive outcry and Blizzard realizes what they're doing.

Seems like the stories repeat themselves in most of the games too. Humans dick around with something, massive armies of darkness or evil come out of no where, other factions hold off expanding evil armies after mass destruction of human planets, cities, etc, around 3 main characters die, civil war occurs in the evil armies.

Can the humans dominate at least once? And give the human race a selection of cool characters. They killed off Lothar, Uther, Alexi, the warrior, the ranger, the sorcerer and Griswald.

Raynor is the only human character left that's actually likable. I'm sure the space marine in the starcraft II CG video will betray Raynor.
 
What on earth does this have to do with Valve? They don't run their own game servers...
 
Blizzard run servers for WoW and constantly update it.
If Battle net was to be P2P, wouldn't the price be significantly lower?
 
Why is battlenet necessary, to me it always seemed like a way to monopolize your multiplayer options like Xbox live instead of something that is really better then what other games have.
 
if there are 9 million players and subscibsion is about 15 dollars, blizzard makes 1 620 000 000 per year only on WoW subscripsions
 
Bad^Hat said:
What on earth does this have to do with Valve? They don't run their own game servers...
Click to expand...
But they provide a server list and community features - which is excatly what battle.net does for Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo and Valve do it for free.

We don't really know anything about the new battle.net for Starcraft II and Diablo III but I find it hard to believe they would consider charging for a fundamental service like battle.net currently is. I really can't image any battle.net features that would be worth paying some sort of monthly charge for but I will withhold judgement until we get more information.
 
AAAGH!!! Ever since this activision merger they've become the new EA :flame:
 
The_E said:
if there are 9 million players and subscibsion is about 15 dollars, blizzard makes 1 620 000 000 per year only on WoW subscripsions
Click to expand...

Yeah let's not forget players with more than one account, like the guy with 36 accounts raiding by himself. We all know what the deal is though..they just can't get enough ****ing cash and now what used to be one of the best game companies ever, is greatly contributing to the downfall of PC gaming.
 
Bad^Hat said:
What on earth does this have to do with Valve? They don't run their own game servers...
Click to expand...

They have servers backing Steam though. But if i remember correctly, aren't they going to use p2p in Steam partially?
 
Uriel said:
They have servers backing Steam though. But if i remember correctly, aren't they going to use p2p in Steam partially?
Click to expand...

Steam already uses P2P but not in a way you're thinking of.
 
Perhaps they're just going to stick ads into it?
 
Would be lame and a dumb move. I think such a move would only cost them because the cost of people not buying the game as a result of this would be greater than the gain from paid Battle.Net. Valve proves that free updates and all kinds of free features can generate revenue (every major TF2 patch increases TF2 sales by 20% as reported by Valve) so it's not even needed to make money.
 
PvtRyan said:
Valve proves that free updates and all kinds of free features can generate revenue (every major TF2 patch increases TF2 sales by 20% as reported by Valve) so it's not even needed to make money.
Click to expand...

Dayum!
 
Ok stay calm...stay calm...they created World of Warcraft.....ok...calm...ca...CA .CA
*heartattack*
 
Perhaps they're just going to stick ads into it?
 
riomhaire said:
Perhaps they're just going to stick ads into it?
Click to expand...

Battle.net already runs ads at the top of the screen in all their games' lobbies. I remember blizzard saying that from here on all their new battle.net games would have achievements. Perhaps this is one of the features that you'd have to pay for?
 
ach.php
 
Operational said:
But they provide a server list and community features - which is excatly what battle.net does for Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo and Valve do it for free.
Click to expand...

This is quite wrong. When you're playing on battle.net, everything is server-side. If you create a game while playing Diablo II on battle.net, and then someone joins the game, you can leave while the game stays intact, because it is hosted server-side. Who hosts the actual server when you're playing TF2? Not Valve.

If as much was processed on the Valve servers as is being done on battle.net (and even more with the release of Starcraft II and Diablo III), there would be monthly fees for a Steam subscription.
 
It doesn't say anything about charging for it.

They'll probably just slap ads everywhere.
 
Baal said:
This is quite wrong. When you're playing on battle.net, everything is server-side. If you create a game while playing Diablo II on battle.net, and then someone joins the game, you can leave while the game stays intact, because it is hosted server-side. Who hosts the actual server when you're playing TF2? Not Valve.

If as much was processed on the Valve servers as is being done on battle.net (and even more with the release of Starcraft II and Diablo III), there would be monthly fees for a Steam subscription.
Click to expand...

I think you're overestimating the amount of processing DII needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BabyHeadCrab
Starcraft 2 won't support LAN play
2 3 4
Replies
149
Views
7K
CyberPitz
CyberPitz
RakuraiTenjin
Federal Government Sues Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Replies
6
Views
997
RakuraiTenjin
RakuraiTenjin
Cole
Why Blizzard Is Awesome
Replies
27
Views
2K
<RJMC>
<RJMC>
Sui
**Idea for an RTS that you play like an FPS**
Replies
12
Views
1K
bam23
bam23
Back
Top