Monetization of Battlenet (article inside)

[newcomplex]

Regarding DLC Justification:

This is a lot easier if you take a perspective in a larger scope than this game. If you break even with this game, then what money can you fund the budget of the next game with? The next game could cost 300 or 400 million. For this reason, making enough money to cover them is essential. Now let's take into perspective that one of those games goes overbudget. Having as much money as possible to cover any unforseen costs such as a rebooking of an entire symphony to redo a song that has changed are quite large dings to the budget. Many times it's budgeted for, but not all projects are so easy.

The company has to keep their eyes to the future... the costs of the games will get higher still. If they don't find ways to maximize the profit of the products they make now... and continually... then the future games they produce will suffer... And any game that suffers could change company reputation. Reputation has the potential of effecting future sales of unrelated games. It's easier to see reasons when you stop thinking about such a small scope and bring it to a global perspective. In terms of understanding how Blizzard fits with this, I highly suggest going to the link in my wall of text above, It's a VERY interesting, and for some reassuring, read. The book is fantastic as well.

In short, you may say "they are not neccessary" right now... but as the industry evolves over time I think this mentality will be required for companies to stay afloat to the ever increasing costs.

Regarding the dedicated server subject:

Well, that's something I'm not 100% qualified to speak on as I'm slightly unarmed with the full situation. I'll find it out on my own to get details.

I will state the following general knowledge in the industry:

Piracy is not something that companies feel they can "remove" or "stop" contrary to uneducated beliefs. Typically it's judged as "mitigation". The reason that companies make anti-piracy measures is to simply make good people think twice about it before they pirate it. A common thought is, if you make it 100% easy to pirate to the point that the line is blurred (think copying casette tapes in the 80s) then good people will pirate and not know they're doing anything wrong. I think it's generally thought of as "good practice" in the industry now to prevent that level of "clueless piracy" but that's about as far as prevention goes. Any attempt to go further (example: Spore) backfires quite well.

I wish I could provide impressions, but quite simply, it was a decision that was made within the scope of their project. While the immediate concern of the population could be "it's to make money" sometimes it's simply a design decision that takes form in a later product. I wish I could say more on the subject.

I was actually aware of the fact that blizzard owned 53% of Activision Shares. I've been using that info to lay the smackdown on kotaku and blizzforum posters for a year now. Even so, I'm sure we're all aware that their are meetings between the two teams, and a lot of ideas get passed around. I wasn't all that concerned until IW-ward launched the massive failfest that was MW2 on the PC. I'd hope blizzard has the good sense to realize that pretty much all the design decisions regarding how the handle the PC port were utter bullcrap.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, it's almost like I'm afraid that some of IW-wards Fail in regards to the PC platform will somehow rub off on blizzard via contact like some virulent plague during a press meeting .

Maybe I'm just not paying enough attention to how Reductio ad Hitlerum Infinity Ward is pretty big fallacy.

[Gifted]

Major difference: Blizzard products are PC exclusive. That changes a lot. If MW2 was ONLY for PC and not for consoles.. I'm sure you would have seen a significantly higher PC exposure.

[newcomplex]

Major difference: Blizzard products are PC exclusive. That changes a lot. If MW2 was ONLY for PC and not for consoles.. I'm sure you would have seen a significantly higher PC exposure.

Modern Warfare 2 proved that you can completely screw a significant portion of your fanbase that had loyally supported you before your game garnered mainstream success, and still sell a successful. I view issues like that as platform independent. Though certainly I would believe the blizzard wouldn't pay a slightest bit of heed if the words "PC" came up in any of the meetings.

[Nicol Bolas]

Modern Warfare 2 proved that you can completely screw a significant portion of your fanbase that had loyally supported you before your game garnered mainstream success, and still sell a successful. I view issues like that as platform independent.

All IW did was merely make the PC act like the other platforms. That is far from "platform independent". IW did not set out to "screw a significant portion of [their] fanbase;" that was simply part of the result of their new consolidated platform scheme.

As for this notion of "loyally supported you," so what? Showing loyalty to a corporation is stupid and should never ever be done. Capitalism relies on you buying the product that works for you. Not in hitching yourself to some wagon and investing your personal feelings in that wagon always doing the things you want it to.

Furthermore, it's incredibly constricting to say that, just because a company did X that their customers liked in the past, that they must always do that same X. What if IW wanted to stop making CoD games and move on to 2D platformers or something? Should they be restricted from doing so because the "loyal" IW fanbois don't like 2D platformers?

[Triceron]

IW did spark something among the PC community. Recent hacks of MW2 have also shown alternate game modes on the disc, which some are speculating as unlockable DLC content. The hacked version of MW2 has these modes active if I recall.

But I'm not calling foul on IW or Activision's part. It's their community, they can do whatever they want to support or gate them, if they feel piracy is such a problem. Of course this doesn't actively address the issue, since piracy for MW2 still exists, and is probably higher now due to lack of dedicated servers and the people who want to play on them (entire clans).

[Pandonetho]

As for this notion of "loyally supported you," so what? Showing loyalty to a corporation is stupid and should never ever be done.

I agree entirely. It's the same BS as those idiots who think because "they" got the company where they are today, the company owes them something. What about, hey, instead of thinking of yourself as a loyal fan, do something about it and stop purchasing what you don't like instead of whining about it?

[newcomplex]

All IW did was merely make the PC act like the other platforms. That is far from "platform independent". IW did not set out to "screw a significant portion of [their] fanbase;" that was simply part of the result of their new consolidated platform scheme.

As for this notion of "loyally supported you," so what? Showing loyalty to a corporation is stupid and should never ever be done.

So you don't have any brand name loyalty at all? In other words,, when buying from a machine that sells both coke and pepsi, you buy either one of them at a 50/50 rate regardless of the fact that it is next to impossible for the Human tongue to taste the difference? If you don't, does that make you a corporate tool?

Capitalism relies on you buying the product that works for you. Not in hitching yourself to some wagon and investing your personal feelings in that wagon always doing the things you want it to.

Your being stupid again. So you say you have no feeling invested towards blizzard? Meaning, if they release starcraft 2, you will give it the same scrutiny that you would any other game rather then giving blizzard the benefit of the doubt?

You will do none of those things. Saying consumer loyalty is not a part of capitalism is ignorant. You do things like that all the time. The company invests in us by doing things that are not always profitable (such as blizzard releasing free stuff), so we become loyal consumers. The fact this fansite exists is proof of that.

I never said that they owed it to us.

Furthermore, it's incredibly constricting to say that, just because a company did X that their customers liked in the past, that they must always do that same X. What if IW wanted to stop making CoD games and move on to 2D platformers or something? Should they be restricted from doing so because the "loyal" IW fanbois don't like 2D platformers?

I never said that they always should, I am saying they generally should. Not because it is morally correct but it is financially correct to do so. You're analogy is perfect why it doesn't work. IW-ward won't become 2d platform developers because they would instantaneously lose support from their already established multi million fanbase, and because they have no experience doing so.

I am NOT thinking of this as a 2d right v wrong system, stop projecting.

What I am saying is that IW ward, as I previously stated, proved it is very financially viable to completely ditch your loyal fanbase once a franchise to gain popularity. These same devs are now exchanging a lot of ideas, especially pertaining to the development of Battlenet 2. Hence, my OP suggesting that blizzard is in a perfectly apt position to drop many of their core features which caused it to be loyal fans. I made no statement commenting on the ethics of the issue (which don't exist in this regard lawls, their is nothing unethical about charging for video games)

You people are missing the entire point. The entire point is that we as consumers may be shafted due to this. Maybe your the fanboy and doesn't care what blizzard charges, but I do.

I agree entirely. It's the same BS as those idiots who think because "they" got the company where they are today, the company owes them something. What about, hey, instead of thinking of yourself as a loyal fan, do something about it and stop purchasing what you don't like instead of whining about it?

once again, stop projecting. We are not whining about MW2 here, we are discussing starcraft2. The only people who used the word "owe" was you and Nicol Bolas.

This isnt about "ZOMG BLIZZARD IS BEING IMMORAL CALL TEH ETHICS POLICE", this is about a consumer not wanting to lose the benefits he has enjoyed as a consumer for 15 years.



And on an OT note pandetheno, you are being flat out stupid when you say that the consumer has no right to whine, and are being stupid when they do not get what they wanted. That is what capitalism is built on. When a company fails you in some regard, not buying their products is just half of what you can do to stop it. Being vocal is the other half, instead of taking it in the ass.

[Nicol Bolas]

So you say you have no feeling invested towards blizzard? Meaning, if they release starcraft 2, you will give it the same scrutiny that you would any other game rather then giving blizzard the benefit of the doubt?

You will do none of those things.

Really? I've been evaluating the progress of SC2 since the day it went public. I'll be in the Beta, playing the game for several months before it ships. I will have evaluated it about as well as any game can possibly be evaluated without actually having a hand in making it.

So don't tell me how I will and will not make my game purchasing decisions.

Saying consumer loyalty is not a part of capitalism is ignorant. You do things like that all the time.

Pure capitalism requires that all consumers evaluate each product without considering where it comes from. Each product is evaluated based on its quality and its price alone. Otherwise you have emotional reactions getting in the way of finding the best value for quality, which interferes with capitalism being a good mechanism for distributing resources.

It's non-capitalistic behavior like this that is the reason why brand-name Acetomenophen and similar OTC drugs still exist. People are loyal to the name "Tylenol", so they buy it even though the off-brand product is exactly the same and substantially cheaper.

Pure capitalism is not practiced.

IW-ward won't become 2d platform developers because they would instantaneously lose support from their already established multi million fanbase, and because they have no experience doing so.

Which shows the irrationality of loyalty. IW may not have experience in it, but that doesn't mean they can't do it well. Also, they may lose their current FPS fanbase, but they'd gain access to all the people who like 2D platformers.

The logical extension of what you're saying is that you can't change anything because it might piss off your fanbase, and there'd be nothing left to replace it.

BTW, IW stands for Infinity Ward. So tacking on the "-ward" is silly.

The entire point is that we as consumers may be shafted due to this. Maybe your the fanboy and doesn't care what blizzard charges, but I do.

No, I don't care if Blizzard "shafts" people. Because I will not be shafted. Because I'm not personally invested in Blizzard's success or failure, I can look at each game for what it is. If it looks like a good deal, strong gameplay and content for the asking price, then I'll buy it. If it doesn't (ie: if they start "shafting" people), then I won't. If they make one game that "shafts" people and another that doesn't, I'll buy the one that doesn't.

Whatever IW, Blizzard, or anyone else does will not become standard practice if people do not allow it to become standard practice. Buy games based on utility, not loyalty. If a company sells a game with low content vs. price, then punish them by not buying it. If you don't like the deal IW gives on MW2, don't buy it. If you don't like getting 2 expansions with substantial content with SC2, don't buy them. Etc.

And if everyone else buys them anyway, rewarding the company for bad behavior, thus cementing the practice? Oh well. Your needs for gaming will just have to be fulfilled by one of the other thousands of game developers out there.

[newcomplex]

Really? I've been evaluating the progress of SC2 since the day it went public. I'll be in the Beta, playing the game for several months before it ships. I will have evaluated it about as well as any game can possibly be evaluated without actually having a hand in making it.

So don't tell me how I will and will not make my game purchasing decisions.



Pure capitalism requires that all consumers evaluate each product without considering where it comes from. Each product is evaluated based on its quality and its price alone. Otherwise you have emotional reactions getting in the way of finding the best value for quality, which interferes with capitalism being a good mechanism for distributing resources.

It's non-capitalistic behavior like this that is the reason why brand-name Acetomenophen and similar OTC drugs still exist. People are loyal to the name "Tylenol", so they buy it even though the off-brand product is exactly the same and substantially cheaper.

Pure capitalism is not practiced.



Which shows the irrationality of loyalty. IW may not have experience in it, but that doesn't mean they can't do it well. Also, they may lose their current FPS fanbase, but they'd gain access to all the people who like 2D platformers.

The logical extension of what you're saying is that you can't change anything because it might piss off your fanbase, and there'd be nothing left to replace it.

BTW, IW stands for Infinity Ward. So tacking on the "-ward" is silly.



No, I don't care if Blizzard "shafts" people. Because I will not be shafted. Because I'm not personally invested in Blizzard's success or failure, I can look at each game for what it is. If it looks like a good deal, strong gameplay and content for the asking price, then I'll buy it. If it doesn't (ie: if they start "shafting" people), then I won't. If they make one game that "shafts" people and another that doesn't, I'll buy the one that doesn't.

Whatever IW, Blizzard, or anyone else does will not become standard practice if people do not allow it to become standard practice. Buy games based on utility, not loyalty. If a company sells a game with low content vs. price, then punish them by not buying it. If you don't like the deal IW gives on MW2, don't buy it. If you don't like getting 2 expansions with substantial content with SC2, don't buy them. Etc.

And if everyone else buys them anyway, rewarding the company for bad behavior, thus cementing the practice? Oh well. Your needs for gaming will just have to be fulfilled by one of the other thousands of game developers out there.

I think the entire gist of your argument is so silly I can refute it in a sentence...

Your entire point comes down to the point where if blizzard does shaft you, you will simply not buy their game because you simply do not care, I on the other hand, would do care if the sequel to the number one game...ever...ends up being garbage. (like MW2 was for the PC)

[Triceron]

We don't live in a pure capitalist world. Analyzing products based on quality is a goal that should be strived for, but is unrealistic and not in the best interest of a company-consumer relationship. If quality was the only factor, there wouldn't be any need for marketting, since everyone is self reliant in decision making, there's no need to advertise or persuade people. Brand Loyalty is a huge factor that can't be simply be ignored with a couple words. If it was that easy, pure communism would have worked.

Fans will be fans. We are on a this forum discussion this game because we are fans. Cold logic will not replace the emotional investment that we, as gamers, put into a series that we enjoy. This is interactive entertainment, a medium where we are SUPPOSED to get a direct reaction through playing. This isn't some nameless brand of baking soda we're talking about.

Games are an evolving media, and nothing can really 'stay the same'. When features that people love are removed or changed, it's irrational to think that the logical solution, to look elsewhere, is the right one. It's just not that simple.