Pay to Play? - Page 6

On June 05 2007 06:32 vicml21 wrote:
lol strafe put it so well.

But one of the reasons why SC1 is doing so well, IMO, is because it is free. Mind you, its a very fun game, that is very well balanced, and still is being supported by patches, but the fact that its free helps it a lot. If Starcraft were pay2play there wouldnt be many more people still playing this game. If anything maybe a small bnet upgrade fee or something? Some one time fee used to help pay for SC2 servers or whatnot, for those interesting in playing online. A bnet upgrade might warrant this cost, and it would be 1000X better than a monthly fee.

On June 05 2007 08:10 Element)LoGiC wrote:


Um... you people realize that sc ISN'T doing so well, right? I don't consider getting hacked in every public game I join, or the abuse, or disconnecting like in abyss, or having no ladder for almost a year like wgtour to be well.

The majority of the community is bottom-feeding scum. They don't have to pay for the hundreds of accounts they win-bot or the ones they use to get online with their friends and hack on BGH/Fastest. Most of the people playing this game right now are BGH/Fastest/Umsing high school kids that smoke pot, and drop out of high school to go work in a trade.

Because of this, I think people should have a one-time fee on every account they make. Blizzard is making a killing off of Warcrack, I don't think they'll notice all of the lost revenue from the above demographic. It would be awesome if there wasn't so much server workload due to winbotting, and name spamming. Have you seen those bots that go into channels to spam? Hundreds of them. Battle.net is in a very bad state right now.

You need to start taking into consideration what the majority of the community actually is, instead of complaining about how small it will be if you had to pay.

On June 05 2007 09:27 Hawk wrote:


WC3 and just about any other rts have a built-in anti hack or other system. FPS games have this too. The only genre that makes you pay on MMORPGS. You make it seem like blizzard is hurting for cash...

On June 05 2007 10:26 Element)LoGiC wrote:


Ah, yes, about this. This is not entirely what I meant. I say blizzard ISN'T hurting for cash. What if it's like 5 bucks for one account? That's not going to make them more revenue than if they made the game cater to the majority of players, and that's what I was trying to convey. A lot of people would still play if it was pay to play, except for people that don't play sc for any other reason than boredom. I think having to purchase accounts would fix widespread hacking, because you'd actually have an investment to lose, and have to buy another account.

Anyway, I hear that Warcraft III has good anti-hack capabilities. I hear not a TON of people hack on that like Starcraft. I don't know exactly how they did this, but it would be very nice to play public games without fear of being map hacked and abused. That stacking abuse made a lot of players very cocky in games, constantly heckling other players, and making fun of people, lowering the standard of the community.

On May 23 2007 13:50 boghat wrote:
I'd rather suck an ultralisk's cock then pay a monthly fee for sc2.

On June 05 2007 11:02 Bub wrote:


are you sure you meant to say "than" than "then" ?

On June 05 2007 11:26 Angel[BTL] wrote:
I would pay also. For those who blatantly say that if they were to put a monthly fee the number of players would be lower than if it was free, I say look at World of Warcraft. You must be prettty ignorant to say people are not playing the game cause it's having a monthly fee. And I know that I'm comparing mmorpg with rts game. But this is just an example to people saying no to the fee.

Look for the numbers of players for WOW which like the last time was 9 million. I recognize also that most of the players for sc are the ones with the age ranging from 13 to 19 years old who don't have the will to pay for a service. For me it seems naturally that Blizzard gets motivated to make a good hack free ladder if he gets a monthly fee. How many of you would support something for the benefit of others for free? Not many I assure you.

Ofcourse the ones who agree on my point are a bit more mature than the rest.

In other words I say yes to paying it. But I expect in return a good quality service.

On June 05 2007 11:49 _PulSe_ wrote:


Hurray for good quality service and what not, but why should i pay for it. What happened to the days where companies took pride in their games and wanted to provide a high quality atmosphere simply because it is what they should do. Back when starcraft first came out bnet was awesome for those that could use it and they tried their best to keep it good. For no other reason than they felt a responsibility to the gamer. Its pathetic how companies like EA just abandon a game they invested time in because they dont see profit in it. even incredibly recently in battlefield 2142 there a loads of problems players are having that have not been addressed. I just think some companies are trying to milk a game for all its worth and sucking us dry. If they had any respect for themselves and their game they would do this for free.

On June 05 2007 10:36 Hawk wrote:


That's what I'm saying. There's plenty of games out there where there's no additional fee and they include pretty much everything you've stated. Consumers get shafted at every turn with prices in EVERYTHING, I'm not about to pay to play a game that should have been out a half decade ago.