Blizzard was silent on whether using Battle.net for StarCraft 2 would require a charge or subscription fee. The service will certainly have new features, Blizzard assured the press in the audience, but they weren't willing to get into pricing specifics. The company went on to say multiplayer was the main focus here, in fact it consumed a large part of the game's early development.

Source: http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790158p1.html

Tarte

Canada933 Posts

May 20 2007 10:46 GMT

#44

Sc2 is already lame enough, having to pay every month for it would make this impossibly ridiculous.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

May 20 2007 10:50 GMT

#45

On May 20 2007 19:46 Tarte wrote:
Sc2 is already lame enough, having to pay every month for it would make this impossibly ridiculous.

Or let the anti-sc2 whiners

red.venom

United States4651 Posts

May 20 2007 10:53 GMT

#46

On May 20 2007 19:46 Tarte wrote:
Sc2 is already lame enough, having to pay every month for it would make this impossibly ridiculous.

Hahah. So much HATE.

Blizzard will have a good gauge of whether the consumers would pay for access to multiplayer or not.

I definitely think the possibility for some features requiring payment on Battle.net is there. I would pay even if they charge for access at all, doubt it will come to that though.

Lamech

United States6 Posts

May 20 2007 11:46 GMT

#47

I actually have to say i would be glad to pay for battle.net as long as the subscription was aroun 5-10$ a month. Just keeping the game free of hackers and supporting blizzard to keep up on patches would be worth it to me (although i am a hardcore SC fan and player

Drowsy

United States4876 Posts

May 20 2007 11:46 GMT

#48

Ya know, if they offer daily tournaments with cash prizes, a completely hacker free ladder with patches every 2 months like wow has, and a finely tuned automatching system similar to the one that war3 used to use before they gayed it up, then I would pay 5-10$ a month.

KodoU-

United States129 Posts

May 20 2007 11:51 GMT

#49

On May 20 2007 19:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:

Show nested quote +

Or let the anti-sc2 whiners

ROFL...

than

my first account got banned for dissing SC ghost probably my 2nd or 3rd post so ban ban ban =D i wanna watch.

Oxygen

Canada3581 Posts

May 20 2007 12:23 GMT

#50

haha they better not dare

Excalibur_Z

United States12248 Posts

May 20 2007 13:13 GMT

#51

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. There are two different kinds of pay-to-play. There's a monthly subscription like WoW, then there's an unlimited subscription for a one-time fee, like Kali.

I noticed this the day Starcraft II's website came up. Nowhere does it mention Battle.net is free in the press release. Nor in the FAQ. At first I was concerned that it would be pay-to-play, but now that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm 100% convinced this will be the new plan for Battle.net:

- Out of the box, the game will cost about $50-60. For this, you get the single player campaign, the ability to play against the AI, the map editor, and LAN/Hamachi play. This is already what most games offer.

- For an extra $10-20, you can register an SC2 Battle.net account. This is for several reasons:

- This is primarily to deter hackers and pirates. If you are caught hacking in the new system (it's going to happen, the best they can do to fight it is proactive moderation) you are banned, and must pay again for a new account.

- As for pirates, generating CD-Keys is something that can be done for any game. Having to register an account is something that can't be circumvented. Repeat or grievous offenders may also have their CD-Key banned, forcing them to buy a new game. I see this as less realistic though.

- The new Battle.net will have additional features. Presumably this will include active hack scanning, a routed peer-to-peer system such as the one War3 uses, a tournament system a la War3, continuous ladders such as War3, possibly with the added benefit of cross-Ladder season-final tournaments.

Another, less likely scenario is that Battle.net will actually be split between general multiplayer and competitive multiplayer. This would mean that serious Ladder players would pay a registration fee and would gain access to Ladder-exclusive events and games. I don't see this happening though since that would deter novice players from attempting the Ladder and improving their skill.

In any case, it's not reasonable to ask for a monthly subscription for an RTS game. It's not feasible for the consumer or the developer. It's not going to happen, so relax.

pooper-scooper

United States3108 Posts

May 20 2007 13:26 GMT

#52

On May 20 2007 22:13 Excalibur_Z wrote:
You guys are looking at this the wrong way. There are two different kinds of pay-to-play. There's a monthly subscription like WoW, then there's an unlimited subscription for a one-time fee, like Kali.

I noticed this the day Starcraft II's website came up. Nowhere does it mention Battle.net is free in the press release. Nor in the FAQ. At first I was concerned that it would be pay-to-play, but now that doesn't seem to be a problem. I'm 100% convinced this will be the new plan for Battle.net:

- Out of the box, the game will cost about $50-60. For this, you get the single player campaign, the ability to play against the AI, the map editor, and LAN/Hamachi play. This is already what most games offer.

- For an extra $10-20, you can register an SC2 Battle.net account. This is for several reasons:

- This is primarily to deter hackers and pirates. If you are caught hacking in the new system (it's going to happen, the best they can do to fight it is proactive moderation) you are banned, and must pay again for a new account.

- As for pirates, generating CD-Keys is something that can be done for any game. Having to register an account is something that can't be circumvented. Repeat or grievous offenders may also have their CD-Key banned, forcing them to buy a new game. I see this as less realistic though.

- The new Battle.net will have additional features. Presumably this will include active hack scanning, a routed peer-to-peer system such as the one War3 uses, a tournament system a la War3, continuous ladders such as War3, possibly with the added benefit of cross-Ladder season-final tournaments.

Another, less likely scenario is that Battle.net will actually be split between general multiplayer and competitive multiplayer. This would mean that serious Ladder players would pay a registration fee and would gain access to Ladder-exclusive events and games. I don't see this happening though since that would deter novice players from attempting the Ladder and improving their skill.

In any case, it's not reasonable to ask for a monthly subscription for an RTS game. It's not feasible for the consumer or the developer. It's not going to happen, so relax.

Great post. I would be more than happy to pay a one time fee for online play. Even a fee as high as $40. I would not be willing to pay a monthly subscription.

Excalibur_Z

United States12248 Posts

May 20 2007 13:34 GMT

#53

Oh, and another thing. What would be the most alluring reason to justify a pay-to-play online experience. I don't even have to tell you it would be the Starcraft 2 version of BWTV. That's another story though. =] If B.net's features are as enhanced as they're leading us to believe, though, broadcasting live games and replays over B.net is certainly a possibility. They already know about the technology involved, no reason why it can't happen.

gEzUS

Canada371 Posts

May 20 2007 14:04 GMT

#54

Blizzard may load B.NET it full of features that are only available to people who pay and still let people play online for free. In china and korea mmos are offered for free but people pay for certain items, access to certain quests, and character classes. It would be a more better way to get die hard to spend a little bit more. But wouldnt enrage the masses aslong they dont floant all the feature you dont have in your face all the time.

MadNeSs

Denmark1507 Posts

May 20 2007 14:10 GMT

#55

LMAO! ofc it won't be p2p or you freaking stupid? It's not a freaking mmo were you have 24/7 support with servers that you play on, it's a rts game!

I know that Blizz has become alittle more greedy since the release of wow, but seriously that's the stupidest question I've seen in a long time.

Newnoise

Sweden44 Posts

May 20 2007 14:17 GMT

#56

They wont have a fee for playing Starcraft 2 online on battle.net - I promise you. Blizzards success with their RTS lies much in the simplicity of battle.net and they wont ruin that with a fee. Just a ridicilous discussion in my opinion.