Blizzard's Wilson: Some Battle.net features to be 'monetized'
His response probably wasn't what you'd want to hear. "We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features," said Wilson. "We kind of have to." He went on to say that they do recognize that everyone loves having it as a free service, and that they don't have a strong desire to make a subscription-based game.
What does that mean for our beloved free online gaming service? We're hoping to find out when we talk to Blizzard bigwig Rob Pardo later this afternoon.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Limezor @ Oct 11th 2008 3:08PM
Fail.
Replica23 @ Oct 11th 2008 7:12PM
Totally. I was waiting for the dice to roll on this one to say "so it begins", but Blizzard beat me to it with the Starcraft II announcement.
treqie @ Oct 11th 2008 3:14PM
They have to? I haven't really gotten the impression that Blizzard's money printing games is slowing down on the millions the pull in every month.
NoHitHair @ Oct 11th 2008 5:51PM
Many assumed Blizzard would remain unchanged after the acquisition. They haven't and it's obvious. In the past, Blizzard would've never considered charging for battle.net because not everything needed to be "monetized" - sometimes companies did things just as a generous gesture to their fans.
I'm running out of gaming companies to believe in.
Limezor @ Oct 11th 2008 7:40PM
They is always Valve.
tahmid515 @ Oct 11th 2008 3:14PM
You mean we get to pay for 3 separate games AND pay for Battle.net?
Blizzard.
You are fucking epic.
BPMOmega [gamertag] @ Oct 11th 2008 3:16PM
They're doing WHAT to Epic?! O_o
Did not need to know that... Plus, I thought Epic was a dude...
Schoon @ Oct 11th 2008 3:47PM
Correct, sir.
It's Blizzard that's the deceiving, indecisive femme fatale.
Matt @ Oct 11th 2008 3:14PM
Really? They "have to?" Could have fooled me, as they've been running it for free for the last what, 10 years? And I'm sure they can't take some of the money from their scrooge mcduck style pool of WoW money to fund it?
brian @ Oct 11th 2008 3:19PM
and here lies why people are so angry.
so what if they make money from WoW to fund a whole city, the fact of the matter is, they would like to make money from other games 2, and im sure keeping battlenet.net free for the past 10 years has been very costly, especially since those games that use it don't even sell anymore ( i know people may buy it every now and then, but not enough to warrant the cost of the servers).
ignore wow, thats a different game, and they deserve to make money off of their other franchises.
stop using WoW as an example of why YOU should get more free stuff, it's not like you are even paying for WoW anyways since most of you don't play it.
Otimus @ Oct 11th 2008 3:31PM
Holy crap, Brian, you're some massive degree of tool. No other game of this type, outside of XBOX Live, charges money for online play. It just flat out doesn't. You don't do that. Stop acting like they deserve money just because. You're practically throwing up the air about yourself that's like "Infact, you should be GRATEFUL they let you pay!"
People should be angry. It's the RIGHT thing to be. It's a change up, an irregular change up that is direct contradiction to everything it's market holds true.
SuperGayParade @ Oct 11th 2008 3:33PM
The complaint is that while WoW makes sense under a subscription-based form, B.Net doesn't since most of the server-load is client side. It's basically just a pairing service, like gamespy. Also, don't even begin to think they lose tons of money on B.net. They have constant banners. You think they're going to let that go?
Orenthol @ Oct 11th 2008 3:33PM
Basically, Brian, what you are, is the typically toolish fan who'll let a company step and walk all over them for no real reason. Infact, you love it. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?
brian @ Oct 11th 2008 3:37PM
i play no blizzard games, so no, im not a huge fan of any kind.
wiredknight @ Oct 11th 2008 3:45PM
@brian
They're easily going to make money off of these upcoming releases. I don't think anyone doubts that.
Making money off battle.net is not the same as making money off their IPs, and most people agree that it seems pretty unfair.
Yes, it had been free for a long time. This is why we love Blizzard. We've been looking forward to these titles for a while now, expecting them to play on Blizzard's lovely free service. Here we are, as production is nearing completion, they decide to make people pay for what has been free for so long. It feels like a cheap shot, a way for them to make some quick cash.
Yes, I don't play WoW. But I don't expect "more free stuff." I expect what was free before to continue to be free. I don't play WoW because of the subscription fees. If I have to do the same for Diablo or StarCraft, I might not play them either.
Matt @ Oct 11th 2008 4:10PM
@Brian - Fine, let's take WoW out of the equation. Some how they have been able to make money for 10+ years offering b.net as a free service. Now, after giving it away for 10 years over 6 games, they suddenly expect people to pay for it. Imagine if suddenly Garmin or TomTom started charging you money for being able to find restaurants in your area. Something that had previously been provided free of charge, you now have to pay for. Battle.net had always been provided free, and they were able to make money. Now, they suddenly have to charge for it? I know that is what makes me angry about this, is that they claim they "need" to do this to make money, when previous experiences have shown this to be false. They don't need to, they just want more money. If they came right out and said that, I would still be angry, but would have much more respect for them not lying to everyone about their real motivations.
And I believe you have to look at the money WoW brings in. It's not like the WoW part of Blizzard is a different company. All the money goes to the same company. The majority of the money the subscription fees have brought in has been pure profit, which goes against the justification of monthly fees (i.e. server upkeep, bandwidth, development of new content). This would be a way for Blizzard to repay it's loyal, paying customers, by offering something for free.
Anticrawl @ Oct 11th 2008 4:21PM
Brian must be one of those forum/blog trolls publishers hire to defend them and spread doubt among the community. He always gets so up in arms to defend Blizzard at a moments notice. Not to mention he's all about the destruction of personal responsibility and control of our coporate and government overlords, just see previous posts involving him. What an idiot.
Rambler @ Oct 11th 2008 4:53PM
@Brian
"and im sure keeping battlenet.net free for the past 10 years has been very costly, especially since those games that use it don't even sell anymore"
Yea games stop selling after awhile. thats nothing new. As a huge fan of blizzard games, I shouldn't have to wait 10 years to get the second Starcraft or 8 years for the third Diablo. If they wanted to make more money then I shouldn't have to wait so long for the next version of a game, I am going to have to wait until 2018 for Starcraft 3.
You can't take WoW out of this argument because they spent/spend most of their time on it. As a fan of the StarCraft and Diablo franchises I feel like i've been ignored for the last 8 years. If they wanted my money then they shouldn't have made me wait for so long. Don't try to make up for lost time by charging me more now because they ignored me for all those years.
13alder @ Oct 12th 2008 8:27PM
yeah gas companys should give me free if i buy enough because they make a ton of money. /sarcasm.
if you are really that opposed to paying though then here's a suggestion, don't. If people aren't willing to pay then they'll make it free but if they are then it'll cost money, basic economics. Bitching however without actually backing it up is just bitching
Peter Johnston @ Oct 11th 2008 3:15PM
Hey Blizzard,
Fuck you.
Signed,
Your loyal customers.
Xoviet chiK - Gyiyg Strikes Back @ Oct 11th 2008 3:16PM
Blizzard? It's definitely Activision Blizard now, at least in practice. It is funny/sad they make all these announcements at a fan-focused conference, and how decidedly not fan-focused they are.
FSK405K @ Oct 11th 2008 3:20PM
As long as there is either an annual fee under $50 or a lifetime fee under $100, it's cool with me.
Otimus @ Oct 11th 2008 3:22PM
Dammit, why are people like you so damned complacement?
Can't you get a little angry about this kind of stuff?
brian @ Oct 11th 2008 3:27PM
there's no reason to be angry, we've had it free for ten years, time to pay up, whats the problem.
only freeloaders are pissed about this.
Will @ Oct 11th 2008 3:27PM
$1 per month would be cool. =/
Otimus @ Oct 11th 2008 3:31PM
Holy crap, Brian, you're some massive degree of tool. No other game of this type, outside of XBOX Live, charges money for online play. It just flat out doesn't. You don't do that. Stop acting like they deserve money just because. You're practically throwing up the air about yourself that's like "Infact, you should be GRATEFUL they let you pay!"
People should be angry. It's the RIGHT thing to be. It's a change up, an irregular change up that is direct contradiction to everything it's market holds true.
brian @ Oct 11th 2008 3:39PM
yes, saying that twice makes it mean more amirite?
eldee @ Oct 11th 2008 5:10PM
the same could be said about you, since you've repeated your freeloader comment 4 or 5 times now.
HAY GUYS, WE'VE BEEN USING AIM FOR FREE FOR SO LONG, TIME TO PAY UP.
TIME TO PAY FOR GOOGLE TOO!
HAY GUYS, FACEBOOK SEZ THEY NEED MONEYS SO WE NEED TO PAY UP!
CRAIGSLIST IS GONNA PUT IN LISTING FEES, ITS OKAY RITE, ITS BEEN FREE FOR A LONG TIME!
etc.
long story short: you're a huge fucking idiot.
kagai @ Oct 11th 2008 7:18PM
You can tell it's Halloween...I see dead people.
AwesomeTown @ Oct 11th 2008 3:20PM
Booooo.
Jeff @ Oct 11th 2008 3:26PM
They're definitely making it tempting to pirate a game I never imaged as anything but a day 1 purchase.
brian @ Oct 11th 2008 3:28PM
there is no excuse to pirate, grats on being a jackass.
and btw, if you pirate the game, you can't play online, if you buy the game you can't play online without playing, so wtf?
you would just be pirating for the sake of pirating, like you would always do.
Xoviet chiK - Gyiyg Strikes Back @ Oct 11th 2008 3:42PM
You can always play over TCP/IP with seven other friends, at least I hope they don't take that feature out...
brian @ Oct 11th 2008 3:43PM
well if htye do that, then they are just dicks.
Lone Starr @ Oct 11th 2008 4:18PM
brian
You say there's no reason to be angry yet you admit you aren't a fan of Blizzard games anyway. Can you see why people may not listen to you?
jackal @ Oct 11th 2008 4:38PM
Brian,
Either the nonsense you've been spouting off is a failed attempt at humor, or you're one of the biggest corporate ass-kissers ever to grace this site; I'm leaning towards the latter instead of the former.
Blizzard, in less than two days, has essentially turned its back on the very fans that've kept its overrated strategy games alive for the last 11 years. Splitting StarCraft 2 into three separate "expansions" just in the name of an unapologetic cash grab guarantees that I, among many others, won't buy the game; there are more strategic, more epic, and better looking RTSs available on the market today (Supreme Commander, I'm looking at you) that have all of their playable campaigns rolled onto one disk. I bought Warhammer 40k-for-dummies....I mean, Starcraft the first time, but I will not do so again.
Today's announcement that it'll try monetizing Battle.net is just throwing salt in the wound to be cruel. The ONLY reason Battle.net exists is because it is free. That was the only saving grace to an online service that not only lacked the features of its competitors but served as a cesspool for cheaters. If battle.net needed a dime from a consumer to stay alive, it needed it 11 years ago.
brian @ Oct 12th 2008 12:33AM
i can understand people voting down my other posts, but honestly?
voting down one about anti-piracy?
im sorry, im open to think they might be doing something wrong, But for anyone to ever think there is a reason to steal someones hard work, they have to be an asshole anyways.
SyChO @ Oct 12th 2008 4:21PM
... I second that comment!
SyChO @ Oct 12th 2008 4:22PM
Jeff's comment that is...
mezzanine @ Oct 11th 2008 3:29PM
So in other words, I no longer have to buy Diablo 3? What a pity.
Dan CiTi @ Oct 11th 2008 3:29PM
Making battle.net pay to play will make me play Diablo III and StarCraft II a lot less.
Ignatius @ Oct 11th 2008 3:38PM
This is why I'll just be using a private Internet LAN program to play with my friends.
Blizzard, what the hell is your problem, you used to be cool. Now it's all talks about 3 bloody seperate StarCraft purchases and now we have to pay to play online for servers that we host from our local machines?
Piss off.
Orenthol @ Oct 11th 2008 3:43PM
Coming up next: No LAN option, so they'll force you to play online.
stoik @ Oct 11th 2008 7:30PM
I, for one, welcome my new PvPGN overlords.
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Oct 11th 2008 8:40PM
Whatcha talkin' about? They'd just charge you extra for the LAN option.
wiredknight @ Oct 11th 2008 3:45PM
If I can't play with my friends online for free, I may seriously consider not buying StarCraft or Diablo. It's not like they aren't making bank on WoW (actually it's pretty disgusting that they would suggest that they aren't), and it's not like they need such massive servers to keep track of a single persistent world.
At the very least, I would hope that the basic on-line play remains free, while there are extra "premium" features that other players may be interested in like stat tracking and dedicated servers and whatnot. If they did it that way, I think I could accept that.
Lorben @ Oct 11th 2008 3:48PM
So now we've got the single player campaign split into 3 games so the people that just want to play the story get fucked, and battle.net going to a subscription service so the people that just want to play multiplayer get fucked.
I've bought every Blizzard game and expansion I've seen on the shelf, sometimes multiple times if I accidentally break the disc (like I did with D2) and even I'm not excited for D3 or SC2 anymore. Good job guys, kudos all around.
Yourself @ Oct 11th 2008 3:52PM
Worst thing ever to happen to Blizzard? Blizzcon '08.
Falcon6 @ Oct 11th 2008 3:58PM
Why do people say that, because WoW is so successful, they are automatically not allowed to make a profit on these other games and services? If they don't make money off Starcraft and Diablo, then they aren't going to make them anymore.
If the game is good, I'll buy it. Simple as that. If Battle.net benefits from this change, I'll look into it. I don't feel an urgency to complain about it.
treqie @ Oct 11th 2008 5:49PM
Difference is, Battle.net has been free for a long time, and the way he justifies it, 'we have to, if we're gonna continue making games', like there's a problem with their economy. I'm interested to know how high the cost is, since they don't host servers afaik, just peer to peer.