BlizzCon 2008: Rob Pardo talks Battle.Net monetizing
by Kevin Kelly 
{ Oct 13th 2008 at 9:00AM }
Not everyone was thrilled with the weekend news that Blizzard is looking to monetize Battle.Net in some way. So we made that one of the first questions we asked Blizzard VP Rob Pardo. The good news is, they're not going to make Diablo III subscription based. Find out everyone he told us after the break.
So Julian Wilson told us that you guys are looking monetize Battle.Net in some way. Is that right?
Wow, that's an evil way of putting it. Julian's turning into a business guy on me. Here's the way I would put it. We're definitely not looking at turning Diablo into a subscription based game. It's clearly not an MMO, so it's not appropriate to do a business model like that. The way we approach all of our games now, is we come up with what we think is a great game, and then we wrap the appropriate business model around it. If that's just a box price, then that's that.
With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Foetoid @ Oct 13th 2008 9:07AM
I was definatly expecting this, tho a small fee to access battle.net is not a big ask in this day and age. A quality service like Xbox Live or B-Net needs money to stay afloat. Isn't it also true that you will only need 1 B-Net account to pay for to allow unlimited access to all B-Net games?
Coldbrand @ Oct 13th 2008 10:36AM
Don't give them any ideas.
bm @ Oct 13th 2008 3:11PM
Yeah, they need money to keep it afloat, their little MMO never did too well, the poor souls.
No, wait a second, their MMO is providing them with a MONSTROUSLY VAST NIGH INFINITE TORRENT OF MONEY.
(Sorry for being unnecessarily obvious there.)
kinshadow @ Oct 13th 2008 9:12AM
Viva la BNETD!
Sam Russell @ Oct 13th 2008 9:20AM
While this is pretty reasonable sounding, one would hope that they've made enough 'billions' off of WoW to give away one of these new, great games for free (or at least let this kind of stuff be free)... but really, who am i kidding!??!
http://www.samalamadingdong.com
Replica23 @ Oct 13th 2008 5:30PM
"http://kotaku.com/5062672/new-ps3--psp-firmware-updates-detailed-coming-soon"
There was so much ass-talking coming out of Blizzcon I really don't know what to believe. One employee says this, another says that, blah blah. For example one statement regarding SC2 says the division is only about the single player campaign, another says each release will bring additions and improvements to multi-player. Which is it? I guess the best course of action is to just keep most opinion to myself until the game is on store shelves.
I'm still skeptical though. All I want is everything in a box without restriction (except for the obvious). No multiple releases, no micro-transactions, no monetized online services, none of it. If the rising cost of development requires the cost of the a product to rise, I'm alright with a higher boxed price. I don't want any of this cell phone bill shit we're getting these days.
Maybe consumers are the problem though. Gaming has been the one area where costs have not at all kept pace with inflation. Yet so many whine so often about how expensive it is. Just be fucking lucky we only get charged $60 considering how much time and money goes into the products we buy. Alright, off topic rant ends.
Cigol @ Oct 13th 2008 9:26AM
It's a slippery slope.
Just look at EA SPORTS and their online 'service' regarding games like FIFA, Madden and NHL... eventually, once they've roped everyone in to the wonders of online connectivity - they are going to start charging for the pleasure.
Levi @ Oct 13th 2008 9:28AM
I'll just stick with my NES XD
Hashbrown Hunter @ Oct 13th 2008 9:42AM
Your avatar shows your age :D
Levi @ Oct 13th 2008 10:06AM
Probably makes me look like I'm not 23, doesn't it? At least to anybody who doesn't know about I Wanna Be The Guy..
..If he made IWBTG into a trilogy, then monetized the online play... I'd buy it ^_^
Desyphur @ Oct 22nd 2008 4:24PM
I would too! I love IWBTG
Amoveo @ Oct 13th 2008 9:38AM
This worries me. He's trying to convince us that he won't nickel and dime us to death using WoW as an example. Couldn't he have used some other example that doesn't involve monthly fees?
Zertoss @ Oct 13th 2008 10:02AM
I think you can relax. He was using WoW's extra and completely optional features for his example. He also said they're not looking at turning Diablo into a subscription based game. And since Starcraft isn't an MMO either, I think it's safe to assume there won't be a subscription fee for that either.
They'll probably add fees for moving your character(s) from realm to realm like US East to US West or to change their names.
I can't think of anything they could charge extra for playing Starcraft online, though. Maybe entry fees for online tournaments?
TexRob @ Oct 13th 2008 10:47AM
I think a smart thing to charge for would be a mule character. Definitely caters to the hardcore. Or a mule account, etc.
Nick8708 @ Oct 13th 2008 9:44AM
If basic usage will be free, it'd have been nice for him to say that. As far as business models go, if it's not going to be subscription based and not free (since it's still up in the air), what's left? A one-time entry fee? That'd be kind of strange; it'd seem like you're buying a license. Maybe tiered accounts, like XBox Live memberships. Free will get you online and able to search for games, maybe establish one. Paid might allow you to have a friends list, persistent rankings/statistics...who knows really. I hope it's free, but hey if it's a good service I won't mind spending some money on it.
Mike @ Oct 13th 2008 9:49AM
"We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra."
....unless you want a complete version of Starcraft 2 - then ya gotta pay.
VerticalEvent @ Oct 13th 2008 10:47AM
You do realize they did the same thing in WarCraft 2, StarCraft and WarCraft 3, right?
They were called Expansion packs.
StarCraft 2 is going to have three fully self-contained games. You don't need to buy the first one to play the second one, and ditto for the third.
Look at it this way - they don't even have the Terran Campaign done yet, and it was unveiled last year. How much longer do you think it's going to take to get all three campaigns done?
As long as the Terran Campaign is about as long as StarCraft 1 with all the campaign missions, I'll be happy.
Mike @ Oct 13th 2008 10:55AM
Expansions are one thing - this, at least right now, appears different. The three races' campaigns were all going to be packed into one game - you know? Like how they did in Starcraft one? Now they've decided to split it up, and, so far, they haven't convinced me that this is anything other than a financial decision - although the fact that they'll be releasing about a year after one another does help their case. They haven't dropped any details about included maps, included features, or length of campaign for any of the three parts of SC2. Until I see some solid details, I'm going to remain skeptical. I'm not going to celebrate the fact that they want me to buy the same game three times.
Now, as you said, if each campaign is big - and I mean larger than the sum of the three campaigns in the original SC (it's ten years later, they can do better.), and if there aren't a bunch of reused assets (recycled maps, textures, ect) in each piece of the game, then yea, they're providing a full product. I'll have no problem with this the day they prove any / all of that to me. The fact remains that all they've said is "it's gonna be awesome - so awesome it had to be broken into three parts". That's not enough to convince me that they have the gamer's best interest in mind.
Ihavepants @ Oct 13th 2008 5:49PM
Well they've already stated that each one will be as long as the entire 3 campaigns of Starcraft. Starcraft had about 32 missions in total, each of Starcraft 2's releases will have about 30. And that's even ignoring the whole adventure/rpg side of things which is sure to be a lot better/longer than sitting in a little room with floating heads telling you what to do.
Alex @ Oct 14th 2008 8:38AM
"They haven't dropped any details about included maps, included features, or length of campaign for any of the three parts of SC2."
This isn't entirely true. They've said they want to get each individual campaign up to more than 30 missions.
Just saying.
Nadril @ Oct 13th 2008 10:40AM
Isn't it fairly obvious? He is just saying that they will charge for things such as name changes, which isn't very odd at all.
You aren't going to have to spend past the $50 for Diablo III to play it online and get the full extent of it.
Unindel @ Oct 13th 2008 5:00PM
Actually they did announce during blizzcon (i know, i was there) that each of the campaigns will be the length of the combined 3 campaigns from starcraft 1, + metagame content such as the in between mission adventure thing, and extra mini-campaigns (for example they're including a protoss mini-campaign where you play as zeratul along with the first terran one).
Really, its not a big deal.
Dr. Rock @ Oct 14th 2008 1:05PM
Use ads on the login page of battle.net to get the money coming. just imagine all the people login in all the time, show ads in the chat rooms. you can get loads of money there, no fees god damnit!!!!! I will rape and kill if that will be true... diablo is the only game that keeps me alive, kinda.. :S
Luay @ Oct 14th 2008 1:34PM
Im not gonna lie if they do charge online for either D3 or Sc2 I won't buy either. And i really hope that the 3 seperate SC versions will not change multiplayer but that you can buy either one you want and be able to play the same multiplayer and just change the single player campaign, this however is still stupid as the original SC had all 3 campaigns in one game.
freebiewitz @ Oct 19th 2008 4:06AM
Well blizzard isnt dumb enough to do p2p I meen if they did all the warcraft 3 fans(dota fans),Diablo fans(insert joke here), and starcraft 1 fans(koreans) would get pretty darn mad.... oh and by the way Im not racist to asains cose I am one