Monetization of Battlenet (article inside)

[supersonic]

The other option was for me to ask you to provide the source where blizzard said they wouldnt "make you pay extra for more content other than expansions".

There was a video interview with one of the devs and they said that exact thing. I'm way too lazy to find it and I don't need you to believe me for it to be true anyways.

So new features are fair game. I could buy that.

What about maps? Do you think they would do a free "map of the month" program or are they going to package a bunch together and sell it as a map pack?

They said the only things they are going to charge you for in the "map" section would be very high quality "mods", not so much as maps. they said maps like DotA doesn't come close to the types of things you would have to pay for, so I don't think it will be that big of a deal for the 1-10$ you might have to pay for a "Counter Strike" like mod or w/e they make for SC2.

[Asfastasican]

Well over a year ago, a little bird told me that Blizzard was making a big effort in trying to build incentives into B-Net 2 in order for them to give good enough reason to charge players a monthly subscription fee.

Now, according to my own speculation, they were probably considering charging players to pay for a B-net 2 subscription, allowing them to play all upcoming B-net 2 games (SC2, D3, etc.) They were also probably considering a payment option that would allow you to play WoW and B-Net 2 games for a slightly higher price.

Now, after hearing what we heard from Blizzard at Blizzcon, they seem to be leaning more towards a micro-transaction system. I'm guessing they are leaning more towards implementing micro transactions instead of a subscription fee, because most players would probably throw a fit watching B-net go from being free as it has been for the past 10+ years to being a pay-to-play service.

[Blazur]

Whether we choose to accept it or not, DLC is very much becoming a part of modern games. If done right, I have no problem with it provided it doesn't give any unfair advantages to subscribers. Examples that come to mind is with the game Killing Floor. The developer release additional player skins for $3 that only affect appearances, while at the same time released free maps to the community. This to me shows integrity with the company, and I'm happy to support their development efforts further because of what they're offering.

What irks me the most about this latest trend, however, is that DLC initiatives tend to distract development teams, since naturally they'll prioritize their efforts on that which will bring them more money. Take the recently release Borderlands game for example. Just one month after its release they have a planned DLC for $10 that adds a new zombie area and additional weapons. The core game on the PC is plagued with trials and tribulations getting a co-op game working with port forwarding and mic support, and would benefit well from a patch. But you know damn well they're all working on getting that DLC completed so it'll hit the projected deadline.

Oh, and don't even get me started with Spore and how EA managed that rediculous game.

In regards to SC2's DLC, I'd bet money the game's delay is due to this monetization strategy they're adding into it as an after thought. But in the end I'm still okay with it because it'll not only encourage modders to create extraordinary maps/campaigns which will prolong the life of the game, but it'll also reward those who put considerable effort into making these great maps.

[Nicol Bolas]

The developer release additional player skins for $3 that only affect appearances, while at the same time released free maps to the community. This to me shows integrity with the company, and I'm happy to support their development efforts further because of what they're offering.

That's integrity? Selling nonsense rather than gameplay shows integrity? To me, that shows a lack of respect for the art of game development.

Take the recently release Borderlands game for example. Just one month after its release they have a planned DLC for $10 that adds a new zombie area and additional weapons. The core game on the PC is plagued with trials and tribulations getting a co-op game working with port forwarding and mic support, and would benefit well from a patch. But you know damn well they're all working on getting that DLC completed so it'll hit the projected deadline.

Yes. Because all of the 3 people who bought the PC version matter more than the half a million who bought the 360 version

They're simply serving the largest customer base. And they'll get around to fixing the PC issues. Probably.

[Blazur]

That's integrity? Selling nonsense rather than gameplay shows integrity? To me, that shows a lack of respect for the art of game development.

Yep. Any company that offers free updates that extend the gameplay immediately gives them integrity in my eyes, and allows me to see past any nonsensical micro-transactions that aren't needed. If people want to pay for these silly things then let them. It gives them additional budget to build the things which will make me coming back to a game, as well as promoting it in a positive light on other forums so others will buy it.

On the flip side, let's compare that to Flagship Studios and how they managed the free vs. subscription based plans. Granted this is not DLC we're talking about, but it's still relevant to the conversation. In their business model people could play the game for free, but those who opted for the subscription were given additional inventory, better gear, and an unlocked hardcore mode. It's pretty obvious in that scenario how they were stiffing their audience and it tarnished their reputation before the game was even released. Plus it gave subscribers an unfair advantage which is complete disrespect for those who buy their game.

In the context of SC2, something tells me they'll continue with their map-of-the-month program for free, and instead will be charging fully fledged campaigns or new gameplay experiences like DotA. My hopes is they'll also champion a free map-of-the-months program for user-submitted maps, the best of which may be given a price for their transaction system.

[Moradon]

Personally I think that WoW struck a good balance with the microtransaction model. I don't want SC2 to have a monthly fee, but I wouldn't mind if it had microtransactions like the way WoW does so.

WoW for example has paid transactions in the form of cash prize tournaments, paid server transfers, race changes, and recently the new pet store. I find these good because they provide a nice benefit, but at the same time are completely optional. A player who uses paid services gains no gameplay advantage over a person who doesn't, which is how it should be. Some people whined about the pet store, but even then it's not that bad because some of the money goes to charity, 99% of the pets in the game are still completely free, and you get your moneys worth because the paid pets are at a much higher quality than the other pets.

Any SC2 marketplace should work like the pet store, where 99% of maps are free with only the 1% being reserved for the truly high quality mods. I'm also open to the idea of paid tournaments that offer cash prizes. Both of these are acceptable microtransactions because they're optional, and actually provide a real incentive to paying because both allow you to actually earn money off of it. Microtransactions are an unavoidable future of video games, so the least we can do is to encourage DLC that actually justifies a fee.

[Triceron]

We all know Blizzard is looking towards the microtransactions path for Battle.net. The fact they mentioned the whole User-made Map 'store' is an indication of this.

However even THEY have said maps like DOTA are not what they expect to cost money, rather something that's more in the line of a total conversion or top-notch campaign. Think Legacy of the Confederation, Antioch Chronicles, etc. with even higher production value.

And so far Blizzard hasn't broken their promises. Pay pets aren't considered content. It's not required to play or enjoy the game, they're just 'toys'. If you're going to use that example you might as well cry about people paying for name changes as game-breaking content you have to pay for. Ludicrous.

I have more faith in Blizz. I'm sure free content will still be available like free downloadable map packs etc. They're not making you pay for a patch. If they make you pay for maps, it will be for optional side content that doesn't affect the main game.

I wouldn't mind paying $5 if they released a high-quality campaign between expansions ala Rexxar's campaign. Sure they released it for free in the past, but that all depends on the quality of the content (ie More units, more spells, more voicework).

[Blazur]

Personally I think that WoW struck a good balance with the microtransaction model. I don't want SC2 to have a monthly fee, but I wouldn't mind if it had microtransactions like the way WoW does so.

WoW for example has paid transactions in the form of cash prize tournaments, paid server transfers, race changes, and recently the new pet store. I find these good because they provide a nice benefit, but at the same time are completely optional. A player who uses paid services gains no gameplay advantage over a person who doesn't, which is how it should be. Some people whined about the pet store, but even then it's not that bad because some of the money goes to charity, 99% of the pets in the game are still completely free, and you get your moneys worth because the paid pets are at a much higher quality than the other pets.

Any SC2 marketplace should work like the pet store, where 99% of maps are free with only the 1% being reserved for the truly high quality mods. I'm also open to the idea of paid tournaments that offer cash prizes. Both of these are acceptable microtransactions because they're optional, and actually provide a real incentive to paying because both allow you to actually earn money off of it. Microtransactions are an unavoidable future of video games, so the least we can do is to encourage DLC that actually justifies a fee.

Well said Moradon, and that pretty much captures how I feel as well. Also, I was not aware WoW had paid tournaments. If they extend this premise to SC2 it would be absolutely brilliant and a great way to bolster the whole e-Sports aspect of the game.

[Nicol Bolas]

's pretty obvious in that scenario how they were stiffing their audience and it tarnished their reputation before the game was even released.

The game you're talking about was an MMO. And thus, the "everybody pays money monthly" is the standard. They were basically saying that you can play a version of the game for free, compared to WoW's monthly fee for all. How does this constitute "stiffing their audience?"

Oh, that's right. Diablo was free, this game was similar in structure to Diablo, and thus it must be free.

Please.

[Blazur]

The game you're talking about was an MMO. And thus, the "everybody pays money monthly" is the standard. They were basically saying that you can play a version of the game for free, compared to WoW's monthly fee for all. How does this constitute "stiffing their audience?"

You compare HG:L to Diablo and then claim it's an MMO. Therein lies the flaw with your argument. I'd hardly call that game an MMO. It was, for all intents and purposes, an RPG lacking in content with a limited party system, and promises of ongoing content that was barely delivered on.

Giving subscribers a better gameplay experience compared to those who don't is indeed what I'd consider stiffing their audience. Imagine if payed SC2 players were given additional abilities or stronger units? It's quite absurd, isn't it?

I could argue for hours about that game so don't get me started. In my eyes, that could be considered one of the worst game launches in PC gaming history.