Premium map speculation

[schofs]

How exactly are premium maps are, redundantly, premium?

I mean they have to be a rare gem and all but technically speaking how are they made premium?

They are rated or the like?

EDIT: Any conditions that must be done? Or how come?

Heres how I would do it: Link the map to your battle.net account and only this account is allowed to make updates to the map. Any future updates to the map users who purchased it would automatically be able to download updates. I'd prefer it if blizzard hand-picked maps eligible for premium content based off the map rating, number of downloads, and just overall map uniqueness and time investment. Then contacted these creators via email or perhaps flagging the map in their battle.net account to allow them to start charging for it if they wish. It's gonna be a nightmare if everyone and their mother can charge for a map they made.

[GnaReffotsirk]

I think a map, after getting much attention and popularity will then prompt Blizzard to contact the map maker and ask him/her if he/she would keep it free or have it as a premium. There's a slight possibility that map makers can submit their work for consideration to Blizzard prior to release. It's kinda like that thing they have with say, making a comic book out of their franchises.

Also, there could be a system where we cannot save those premium maps in our drives, and we will always have to download them through Battle Net so we cannot share them via email.

I hope map providers (at that time) like what we have with ICCUP maps don't get greedy and charge us up a subscription to play in their tournaments.

Pray, they don't get greedy. Pray, they're not that stupid. Besides, there's no reason we can't be civil, right?

/throwsApple

[milo]

As I'm becoming more and more a casual gamer, it's pretty safe to say that if they're going to charge for the map, I won't be playing it.

[Edfishy]

Personally, I'd prefer a Silver/Gold membership program along with a "premium" section.

Silver (free) accounts can play silver-level games for free.

Gold membership (paid, $50 yr.) can play gold-level games (as well as receive other Blizzard benefits, whatever they may be), while Silver accounts are restricted in whatever fashion the developer and Blizzard agree to (limited plays, limited play time, limited abilities, no silver access, etc). The developer receives income based upon downloads/views.

Premium games have a set price with discounts available for Gold members.

The reason why I'd prefer a Silver, Gold, Premium setup is so that the greater majority of maps or modifications can be played or used without hassle by the players. You either have Gold, or you don't. The availability of fixed-price products should still be fairly prevalent, but more specifically for campaigns, artwork, or tournament maps.

[GnaReffotsirk]

Personally, I'd prefer a Silver/Gold membership program along with a "premium" section.

Silver (free) accounts can play silver-level games for free.

Gold membership (paid, $50 yr.) can play gold-level games (as well as receive other Blizzard benefits, whatever they may be), while Silver accounts are restricted in whatever fashion the developer and Blizzard agree to (limited plays, limited play time, limited abilities, no silver access, etc). The developer receives income based upon downloads/views.

Premium games have a set price with discounts available for Gold members.

The reason why I'd prefer a Silver, Gold, Premium setup is so that the greater majority of maps or modifications can be played or used without hassle by the players. You either have Gold, or you don't. The availability of fixed-price products should still be fairly prevalent, but more specifically for campaigns, artwork, or tournament maps.

This is so much better than the all-or-nothing setup. This also would demand, I think, Blizzard to produce at least those maps of the week things.

I'd appreciate a monthly mini-campaign of 3-4 maps too for Gold/Premium members. These mini-campaigns can be as simple as a short story of some marine's recollections, for example, before he gets infested by a queen.

[QuesterPro]

Well, one question would be, will the shift from medieval/fantasy to sci-fi create the same atmosphere for players? What spells will be there? What items? Will this shift in genre affect the gameplay, and what are the costs and benefits of the change? What will be lost and gained should players use Sc2's engine than WC3?

I think it highly depends on the execution and the game concept itself. Magic the gathering theme, or this "one man with all the powers" kinda fits more with medieval/fantasy. Therefore, it rests on the creator of DotA 7 to figure out how to root a concept with an established pop-culture -- so to speak, and ensure success.

This is very important, as players will somehow undergo an adjustment phase, and not many are patient enough to indulge with the unfamiliar.

I think there's a good chance a DotA-styled game will succeed. But it cannot use the same principles that made Wc3 dota a sensation.

I've never seen a sci-fi RPG out there that appealed to clients more than a Medieval/fantasy would. This doesn't mean to limit the creator's creativity and chances of success though. However, the task is quite a bit of a challenge, and if I should say it, a new ground to break.

If I were to design such a game, I'd start by examining the current UMS that people play which could be said, a relative to games such as DotA.

My speculation is that people will expect something new, even if they don't know it yet.

I would suggest DotA be kept within WC3, that the creator keeps his wonderful hobby and updating of Wc3 dota. That's something he shouldn't risk breaking or smearing with a port. Unless if he actually makes new models, spell effects, etc..

Thanks.

[QuesterPro]

Personally, I'd prefer a Silver/Gold membership program along with a "premium" section.

Silver (free) accounts can play silver-level games for free.

Gold membership (paid, $50 yr.) can play gold-level games (as well as receive other Blizzard benefits, whatever they may be), while Silver accounts are restricted in whatever fashion the developer and Blizzard agree to (limited plays, limited play time, limited abilities, no silver access, etc). The developer receives income based upon downloads/views.

Premium games have a set price with discounts available for Gold members.

The reason why I'd prefer a Silver, Gold, Premium setup is so that the greater majority of maps or modifications can be played or used without hassle by the players. You either have Gold, or you don't. The availability of fixed-price products should still be fairly prevalent, but more specifically for campaigns, artwork, or tournament maps.

But i think you're missing the point of Battle.Net, Blizzard made battle.net to be the biggest FREE online service ever! If they started charging $50 fees for gold membership, then it wouldn't be the biggest FREE online service ever then would it!? ...

[GnaReffotsirk]

But i think you're missing the point of Battle.Net, Blizzard made battle.net to be the biggest FREE online service ever! If they started charging $50 fees for gold membership, then it wouldn't be the biggest FREE online service ever then would it!? ...

The moment LAN was removed, Blizzard showed they needed the money. Battle Net as the biggest free service is a dream nowadays. Even so with their plans of maintaining it, and adding features to it that players will enjoy.

This is what that post means: that still, players will be able to play without a subscription, but when they want to play with things that Blizzard spends workforce (therefore money) on, then that is an investment they'll need to have us pay back.

This will serve us in the long run. What I love about Battle Net is that they still allow players to play online for free without the premiums. The value of that is something noob money-grabbers don't often understand.

[Gradius]

So how much percent do you guys think Blizzard will want from the map revenue for premium maps? 15%? 40%? I don't work for Blizzard, so if most of the money will be going towards Blizz then I'll be reluctant to charge for any of my maps.

I wonder how blizz will select premium campaigns though vs. regular competitive multiplayer maps.

Some of you are are missing the point of why they want to charge for maps. It's so large teams of people have an incentive to provide us with an awesome maps or campaigns and invest large amounts of time into building them for us. Although I may not like that I have to pay for a map, I do think this incentive will produce better quality maps for us in the end. I really hope that blizzard is extremely selective when it comes to which maps a fee is charged for. It has to be a rare gem among the maps to be considered a map worth paying for. At the very least there should be a way for us to demo a map or somehow know what we're getting into first before we decide whether or not it's worth the money.

QFT

[Edfishy]

Well, Apple takes 60% for iPhone apps, Microsoft takes about 30% for XBL community games.

I'm not immediately able to recall the numbers on XBLA games or WiiWare games, but would figure they'd be above the 15% mark.

They're going to be looking for profit and a way to pay for the development and maintenance of this program, but they'll also have to take into account the relative popularity of StarCraft 2 compared to the other distribution platforms (Steam, WiiWare, XBLA, iPhone). I'd say 10-30% is likely, I can't see any higher being justified.