A Rant On Bosses: Final Fantasy & Shank
14 hours 48 mins ago
For over a decade BattleNet (Blizzard's online network) has kept Starcraft, Diablo and Warcraft players nice and happy at no extra cost. It looks like this will be a thing of the past however, come BattleNet 2.0, which is to debut with Starcraft 2. Diablo 3 director Jay Wilson when questioned admitted Blizzard is looking to monetize the new BattleNet. What form this will take either through subscriptions, expansions or micro-transactions is yet to be seen.
new version of the multiplayer browser Battle.Net will debut with Starcraft II. How will it be superior to the previous version? Well, it'll be able to hit you up for money.
During a BlizzCon 08 panel discussion, Diablo 3 director Jay Wilson said, "We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features. We kind of have to. Blizzard wants to avoid putting in a subscription but yes, some as-yet-unknown features will cost money.
News story attached to:
- Diablo III [Mac, PC]
- StarCraft II [Mac, PC]






Comments
Honestly, do they think gamers are made of cash? It's just beyond a joke at this point. I thought Blizzard would be one of the companies that just would not become like every other "burn the fans, get the cash" company out there.
Anyway, Blizzard has no plans to actually charge a monthly fee, as I have posted below.
And do you have any idea how much better Battle.net 2.0 will be? We're getting full on eSports support, in-game voice chat, better response time and tons of other stuff
I'm aware it's going to be better, that I understand, but if it has a fee, then they really are milking everything they have at this point. Still having read what you said, it makes a lot more sense and that kinda thing is perfectly fine.
Probably the only reason people legitimately purchase WC, SC, or Diablo is to play on Battle.net.
Otherwise it is just worth it to single player or LAN with friends, and you don't technically need a legal copy for that.
I understand the economics behind this move - but it is alienating fans and casual gamers.
Really, if you think about it, they've already got to be making more money than they know what to do with. Add up their claimed user base for WoW, then multiply that by subscription cost and they're making *bleep* amounts of money continuously every month.
So, I ask, why in the HELL would they need to charge for BattleNet? If that ends up being the case, I see myself just passing up future Blizzard titles altogether.
I ain't buying Diablo 3, Starcraft 2 or Wacraft 4 if it means i have to pay money monthly just to play on Battle.Net =|
Seriously you'd think they'd have enough money from WoW but no, now Blizzard must milk all of the fans from their money for their other games, Seriously Blizzard go die in a BIG BIG Fire =|
You think this could have something to do with Activision as they are (merged) partners now?
They will sell stuff that won't change game balance.
Rob Pardo talks about monetizing Bnet
They will only charge for extra stuff. This is no different than Neoseeker charging $10 for a name change.
Again props for keeping a level head and pointing out the facts, keeping servers running for a high traffic service isn't cheap.
This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.