Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
- Kurogamon
- Keeper of the Keys
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:09 pm
- Location: Blinded in the dark.
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
/agree with both Dusk and Red. I'm not playing anymore, I'm not buying their crap, and I'm getting other people to boycott them if they pull a WoW. It's not that we're THAT unwilling to pay. It's that the spirit of BNet is gonna be gone. Everyone can play, everyone is there for free having a good time. If we had to pay, it would turn into an obsessive fest of keeping track of the time you've played so you know you're not wasting money. I would hate that.
Again, they're gonna get lynched. I'm sure Korea has enough hackers and psychotic people. I'm not stereotyping, by the way, there's probably just as large a percentage of homicidal and criminal people in the US.
Again, they're gonna get lynched. I'm sure Korea has enough hackers and psychotic people. I'm not stereotyping, by the way, there's probably just as large a percentage of homicidal and criminal people in the US.
Can you hear them?
- The Colonel
- Letter Linguist
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:17 am
- Location: NLO
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
I wonder if this is Blizzard or Activision making the decisions here. Activision has always been good at screwing things over.
- pandamanar
- Revenent of the Replies
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:39 am
- Contact:
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
Agreed. I've been noticing this trend that Blizzard has been taking, going down the path of twinking over their fan-base instead of embracing them and letting them thrive. We ARE B.net. Warcraft 3 owes its continued popularity to us, not to Blizzard, not to B.net. Hopefully if B.net goes pay-to-play, we can survive off of programs like Garena or something... >_< ARGGGGGGGG!
First WOW is pay to play, then Starcraft is split in thirds... now this? Next is Diablo 3 being pay-to-play AND pay for special item drops >_< twink this man. I'm done with Blizzard if they keep going down this path.
First WOW is pay to play, then Starcraft is split in thirds... now this? Next is Diablo 3 being pay-to-play AND pay for special item drops >_< twink this man. I'm done with Blizzard if they keep going down this path.
http://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c242dfce214c
Play League of Legends, get to level 10 and I get buffs.
Play League of Legends, get to level 10 and I get buffs.
- Hell_Tempest
- Grandmaster of Grammar
- Posts: 1291
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:31 pm
- Location: Over there...you know, right there...
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
HL2 was split into thirds and did quite well.
I see your point though. This milking of the proverbial cash cow must stop.
I see your point though. This milking of the proverbial cash cow must stop.
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
All you guys are cheap asses.
WoW is updated REGULARLY. Bug fixes, new items, and general content is created with your monthly fee.
You wouldn't HAVE B.net if it wasn't for Blizzard. You're in no position to make any demands.
How much content are you being given for Starcraft's 3 installments? They're making it 3 installments because they couldn't fit EVERYTHING into a single game.
I think all of us are a bit arrogant to that fact that if we pay for something we're probably going to get better quality and content. Even if Blizzard loses some customers there's still going to be plenty of people paying for the game and generating profit and progress for the game.
WoW is updated REGULARLY. Bug fixes, new items, and general content is created with your monthly fee.
You wouldn't HAVE B.net if it wasn't for Blizzard. You're in no position to make any demands.
How much content are you being given for Starcraft's 3 installments? They're making it 3 installments because they couldn't fit EVERYTHING into a single game.
I think all of us are a bit arrogant to that fact that if we pay for something we're probably going to get better quality and content. Even if Blizzard loses some customers there's still going to be plenty of people paying for the game and generating profit and progress for the game.
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
Here's the thing, Red. If blizzard makes it pay to play, sure, it might improve the quality a little and it probably wouldn't be too expensive for me to deal with, but that isn't the point. The point is that if Blizzard can get away with monetizing this, why can't they get away with monetizing everything and transforming everything into a direct vehicle for profit? "Want to play on Bnet? Sure, 5$ per month. But as of the latest patch, you have to pay $5 more to play custom games or tournaments. Also, we're gonna sell the editor separately with our next RTS game for the same price as the game itself." See what I'm saying here?
Blizzard games were fantastic before, and they didn't have this much money lying around. Let WoW be their cash cow, but let people enjoy the other games in their entirety for just the up-front fee. I'm fine with the starcraft trilogy, seeing as how it's basically a game and 2 expansions. That's perfectly understandable, I think. But limiting portions of every game they make to those that are willing to pay more is just outrageous.
Blizzard games were fantastic before, and they didn't have this much money lying around. Let WoW be their cash cow, but let people enjoy the other games in their entirety for just the up-front fee. I'm fine with the starcraft trilogy, seeing as how it's basically a game and 2 expansions. That's perfectly understandable, I think. But limiting portions of every game they make to those that are willing to pay more is just outrageous.
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
Here's the thing, Phox.Phox wrote:Here's the thing, Red. If blizzard makes it pay to play, sure, it might improve the quality a little and it probably wouldn't be too expensive for me to deal with, but that isn't the point. The point is that if Blizzard can get away with monetizing this, why can't they get away with monetizing everything and transforming everything into a direct vehicle for profit? "Want to play on Bnet? Sure, 5$ per month. But as of the latest patch, you have to pay $5 more to play custom games or tournaments. Also, we're gonna sell the editor separately with our next RTS game for the same price as the game itself." See what I'm saying here?
Blizzard games were fantastic before, and they didn't have this much money lying around. Let WoW be their cash cow, but let people enjoy the other games in their entirety for just the up-front fee. I'm fine with the starcraft trilogy, seeing as how it's basically a game and 2 expansions. That's perfectly understandable, I think. But limiting portions of every game they make to those that are willing to pay more is just outrageous.
More importantly, I think we're missing the fact that they haven't even announced anything about pay-for-play on B.net. Quick question: how does wow charge you? A flat $15 per month? Do you pay for equipment? Do you pay for new content?Jay Wilkson Gamespy interview wrote:Is our intent to make a subscription-based game like World of Warcraft? No.We're not an MMO. That's not our goal. So we are leaning towards more of a boxed product. Would we consider microtransactions? Yes, we would -- if it was right for the game. Would we consider some kind of subscription-based, or pay-to-play? Maybe in some regions. Or maybe for North America, if it was right for the game, and if it felt like a "win" for the fans. We want to make money, obviously, we're in business for that, but we don't want to gouge our customers, we don't want them to have an experience that feels worse. What we prefer is to offer them a service that they feel is worth paying for. And that's how we tend to approach things: "This is a service that we want to offer. How much is it going to cost us? OK, it's going to cost us this much, so we do need to supplement. Is it something we feel is worth paying for?" And if the answer is yes... obviously, no one likes paying for anything. I'd love to get everything for free. That would be awesome, right? But the truth is, we wouldn't ever get anything.
- SetaSoujirou
- Letter Linguist
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:47 pm
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
BNet is some magic[k] entity that Blizzard gloated and customers praised. Hence the uniform disgust of simply imagining a pay-to-play BNet, as that is something we've seen on WoW. (Whom has a very controversial existence among gamers)
You pay $5/month, no?
Edit: Nevermind, that's runescape. Google shows $15/month.
You pay $5/month, no?
Edit: Nevermind, that's runescape. Google shows $15/month.
A wild §eta has appeared!
*Twinkle* Lv. 1337
No I'm not a troll.
*Twinkle* Lv. 1337
No I'm not a troll.
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
There is a huge difference between Battle.net and WoW's servers. Do you have any idea how much data is stored on WoW's servers, and how much is transferred daily? I don't have a specific number; but I can guarantee you it's much, much larger than Battle.net.
Adding a free to Battle.net would be a rather stupid move. It's just a gateway for people to connect to hear other. In essence, it's aa glorified LAN network (with a slight exception for Diablo as character information isn't stored on the user's machine unless you use Open Battle.net). Forcing people to pay to use Battle.net would only result in people using other means to connect each other (ie. Hamachi, Garena). Blizzard should understand that by now Battle.net is more of a convenience than a necessity.
Adding a free to Battle.net would be a rather stupid move. It's just a gateway for people to connect to hear other. In essence, it's aa glorified LAN network (with a slight exception for Diablo as character information isn't stored on the user's machine unless you use Open Battle.net). Forcing people to pay to use Battle.net would only result in people using other means to connect each other (ie. Hamachi, Garena). Blizzard should understand that by now Battle.net is more of a convenience than a necessity.
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
0 rows returned
0 rows returned
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
I think it'd be pretty simple to code everything so users could ONLY use B.net servers.
Concerning the WoW questions: I'm just assuming that if Blizzard did make B.net pay for play then its monetary design would resemble that of WoW.
Concerning the WoW questions: I'm just assuming that if Blizzard did make B.net pay for play then its monetary design would resemble that of WoW.
- SetaSoujirou
- Letter Linguist
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:47 pm
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
I'm sure the detracts from the overall awesomeness that Blizzard has developed by making a dictatorship-esque server.
A wild §eta has appeared!
*Twinkle* Lv. 1337
No I'm not a troll.
*Twinkle* Lv. 1337
No I'm not a troll.
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
I think it'd be pretty simple to code a crack to bypass that restriction.ReDSeX wrote:I think it'd be pretty simple to code everything so users could ONLY use B.net servers.
Concerning the WoW questions: I'm just assuming that if Blizzard did make B.net pay for play then its monetary design would resemble that of WoW.
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
0 rows returned
0 rows returned
- Kurogamon
- Keeper of the Keys
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:09 pm
- Location: Blinded in the dark.
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
Yeah, I use Hamachi regularly to get past petty things like not having a real CD key for sponsored networked play.
But again, it's the spirit of everyone being able to play for nothing and not needing to think about how you're spending money every second you're not playing.
But again, it's the spirit of everyone being able to play for nothing and not needing to think about how you're spending money every second you're not playing.
Can you hear them?
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
Games such as Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3 don't need constant streams of new features, like WoW does. It makes sense on some level to pay per month for WoW, because what you're getting is features over time, in addition to your original investment. For an RTS, aside from a rare addition (such as a few random new maps or the goblin tinker), there really isn't much a need for a constant stream of cash coming in. Sure, there are bug fixes. But that's about it. If we had to pay on a consistent basis, I would feel, as a customer, that I was owed fairly consistent content patches, such as they have for wow. And that simply does not work for an RTS; it would just become bloated.
The core of my point in my previous post was that if you let them get away with a little bit, they are theoretically capable of pushing that more and more to test the limits of how much cash they can extract from the customer. My example was based on a hypothetical situation, which may or may not happen in any form, and if it does would likely be far less extreme.
The core of my point in my previous post was that if you let them get away with a little bit, they are theoretically capable of pushing that more and more to test the limits of how much cash they can extract from the customer. My example was based on a hypothetical situation, which may or may not happen in any form, and if it does would likely be far less extreme.
- Kurogamon
- Keeper of the Keys
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:09 pm
- Location: Blinded in the dark.
Re: Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Battle.net
WoW's pay is justified, their stream of updates is steady enough to warrant it. However, Blizzard interpreting customer loyalty for Starcraft as dropping the soap is somewhat ridiculous. At least sell each of the volumes for less than a full game.
Can you hear them?