Monetization of Battlenet (article inside)

[ArcherofAiur]

So you dont think Blizzard would ever charge to watch pro games? Or just not the replays?

[Triceron]

If they do, it will be a service.

The DirectTV Blilzzcon coverage is a good example for this, and it's not even covering any specific game-related material. People paid $50 for this service, and for it they got full coverage of the con as well as exclusive interviews and an ingame pet for WoW.

But like the tournament coverage, there will be alternative sources of information. Fan sites, replays released through alternative sources and services, etc. DirectTV is simply an option if you want to watch it right there, right now.

If you don't want to pay, you don't have to pay. At the same time, there's no reason why things must stay free because it did in the past. A service is a service, and it's going to be Blizzard's decision whether you get it for free or not. You have no sway over their decisions, so ultimately our opinions on whether they will charge you or not is moot. Your other option is simply not buying into it and going to an alternative source, if/when one exists.

[Pandonetho]

n a cooperative game, it doesn't hurt you at all that someone else has better gear than you. Whether they got it through putting in longer hours or paying money is entirely irrelevant.

You know what keeps D2 alive? PvP, so yes, "items that can only be bought by real cash" will severely screw things up.

It's the exact same thing that screws up free games with cash items.

[Nicol Bolas]

You know what keeps D2 alive? PvP, so yes, "items that can only be bought by real cash" will severely screw things up.

It's the exact same thing that screws up free games with cash items.

PvP is what keeps people playing Diablo? Man, that only makes me more glad I never played it.

And again, that only matters for a competitive game (like PvP play). In a cooperative game, other people having stuff doesn't hurt you.

[Pandonetho]

PvP is what keeps people playing Diablo? Man, that only makes me more glad I never played it.

Uh, if you haven't realized the trend, the only thing that keeps games 'alive' is competition. I don't think anyone who's played bioshock 3 times is going to play it 5 more times, of course that's just the nature of the game but co-op games aren't played nearly as much as any competitive game either.

Why do you think counterstrike is still alive? Because it's cool?

People don't like grinding for no reason, the only reason they grind is to improve their character so they can whoop someone else.

[Moradon]

PvP is what keeps people playing Diablo? Man, that only makes me more glad I never played it.

And again, that only matters for a competitive game (like PvP play). In a cooperative game, other people having stuff doesn't hurt you.

Even in cooperative games, being able to buy items that impact gameplay tend to have a negative effect on the overall enjoyment of the game. A big part of RPGs is the feeling of accomplishment that comes from getting good loot and watching your avatar grow and become more powerful.

In many cases, such as Diablo, getting good loot is one of the main goals of the game, period. When you can simply buy awesome gear in a few minutes, it ruins the feel of accomplishment, and greatly reduces the replay value of the game. Good gear is almost like a badge of honor, because having an awesome weapon that's extremely hard to get says a lot about your dedicated and skill. When a game has a goal (getting powerful items), and you can simply buy a shortcut to that goal (buying the awesome sword), the game suffers because of it. Just talk to the countless people who have quit WoW, ask them why they quit, and I guarantee you that the #1 reason they will give you is, "they ruined the accomplishment of getting epic gear by giving it to everybody". Now WoW doesn't charge money for epic gear, but you get my point.

Microtransactions should be purely optional, and should never have a strong impact on ANY game, competitive nor cooperative.

[Gifted]

Uh, if you haven't realized the trend, the only thing that keeps games 'alive' is competition. I don't think anyone who's played bioshock 3 times is going to play it 5 more times, of course that's just the nature of the game but co-op games aren't played nearly as much as any competitive game either.

Why do you think counterstrike is still alive? Because it's cool?

People don't like grinding for no reason, the only reason they grind is to improve their character so they can whoop someone else.

While I agree that competition does great at maintaining the longevity of a game's lifespan... I think it's merely part of a larger subject. Collaboration keeps games alive as well. Whenever I pull out this game on a LAN party (I still have one about 1 time a year, it's a birthday tradition.. people fly in for it) we don't pvp at all and it's not grinding, but it's still "alive" for us.

Let's also agree that the term "alive" is subjective. What you view as alive may be different than my own. For example, for SNES emulators, one of the most popular games to play is the co-op game Secret of Mana or any of the other Seiken Densetsu titles in the series. While you may not define this as "alive" it can certainly be perceived that way by me.

Even in cooperative games, being able to buy items that impact gameplay tend to have a negative effect on the overall enjoyment of the game. A big part of RPGs is the feeling of accomplishment that comes from getting good loot and watching your avatar grow and become more powerful.

In many cases, such as Diablo, getting good loot is one of the main goals of the game, period. When you can simply buy awesome gear in a few minutes, it ruins the feel of accomplishment, and greatly reduces the replay value of the game. Good gear is almost like a badge of honor, because having an awesome weapon that's extremely hard to get says a lot about your dedicated and skill. When a game has a goal (getting powerful items), and you can simply buy a shortcut to that goal (buying the awesome sword), the game suffers because of it. Just talk to the countless people who have quit WoW, ask them why they quit, and I guarantee you that the #1 reason they will give you is, "they ruined the accomplishment of getting epic gear by giving it to everybody". Now WoW doesn't charge money for epic gear, but you get my point.

Microtransactions should be purely optional, and should never have a strong impact on ANY game, competitive nor cooperative.

There are ways to find a good balance, however, I think that this is in terms of allowing the choice to be with the player. The best example I've seen so far is the model that Sony approached relating to this with Everquest 2. They have a specific server for all those gold farmers and people to allow monetary trading for items. It is prohibited on the other servers. This allows for people to earn money on the allowed server (or servers now) and the people who don't wish to play with people who make that choice can do so with confidence.

While I don't 100% agree with this model, it has been successful at maintaining two different spectrums of playstyle.. people who pay money for the advantage are all in the same pot. People who don't spend money can play with others who are likewise.

[FrozenArbiter]

Two phrases I've heard in the industry relating to this subject. I've eluded to them in previous posts:

"Microtransactions are considered good when the customer believes they are a bargain, not a burden"
"The customer will be happy if they look to purchase a Micro-transaction with Macro-compensation."

Rather short for a Gifted post.. agreed?

Could you elaborate a little on the second statement? Maybe give an example? Is it just a fancy way of saying that people are happy if they can pay a small sum for something they consider to be worth a lot? Or does it have a deeper meaning than that?

Geez, that's a lot of questionmarks

[Gifted]

Could you elaborate a little on the second statement? Maybe give an example? Is it just a fancy way of saying that people are happy if they can pay a small sum for something they consider to be worth a lot? Or does it have a deeper meaning than that?

Geez, that's a lot of questionmarks

What it means is that if you are going to create a microtransaction, it's typically considered more successful if you create content that feels like it's very much worth it. A great example, though simple, is iTunes. They sell music by the song. In reality, you're paying 99 cents for a song. The value is that you feel safety as you received the song legally, morally a person can feel like they are contributing to the artist for their work, and also, you can play it for as long as you want. Many would consider this a small cost with big return.

Broken steel for Fallout 3 is considered by many a micro transaction (though it is about 10 dollars for downloadable content) but it provides a level upgrade from lvl 20-30 and provides many hours of content additional to the original game. While this may not be the best example as it's completely based on opinion, I felt that for my 10 dollars, I got a solid exchange which is considered "macro-compensation". In other words, I paid my money and am satisfied with what I got.

After typing all of this, I bet I can explain it in simpler terms.

If you are going to pay more money for it, the content has to be good value and not $#!7.

To answer your final question, it's shallow and deep as a whole, which is what makes it a good statement. On the surface of simplicity, it can teach you basics. Don't sell crap because you can sell it. When you look into it deeper, it holds other meanings that are also regarded as explored truth within the industry... some of which revolving around company perception/exposure. Fanbase relations. etc.

[FrozenArbiter]

Thanks, was just making sure I understood what you meant. Makes sense.