Monetization of Battlenet (article inside)

[Crota]

I dont think anyone is against the developers providing for their families. Its against the microtransaction business model and any consequence it may have. Personally i think blizzard should make the product and then value it at what ever its value is. So if the game is more expensive than other games so be it, ill pay. I know that Ill get a great game and I dont mind paying for it. You buy Starcraft2 and gain access to this entire incredible esports expeirence with all that that entails.

What I dont want to do is buy a portion of the full game and then have to upgrade it periodically. I feel that bundled content/features provide much more incentive for quality than segemented features/content. Because of this I think that paying a one time fee for access to the full game is much better for long term profit and brand name integrity.

I totally agree with you. The additional content should in no way reflect the normal gameplay of the game in a RTS. Microtransactions where players receive an advantage falls within the realm of facebook and mmorpg style games. I'm under the impression that the microtransactions will be for RPG style maps? Perhaps a very gifted map modder will make a game similar to Diablo III out of the StarCraft II engine. These are all possibilties where it would work and work well. On top of that, if players or professional eSports team would like to pay to get their team logo on the units/buildings, that would be interesting use of the transaction system as well.

[Pandonetho]

Let's also agree that the term "alive" is subjective.

Sure I can agree that it's subjective. You may consider a game alive when you get together to play it with a friend once a year, but I consider a game alive when it actually has a decently sized community still going for it, not some tiny cult.

If I suddenly picked up Warcraft 2 and went onto B.net and saw no one on it, I would not consider it alive. There is no one to play it with and face it, playing with only your friends no matter how often is a completely different story than playing with a community.

We're in an age now where people from all over the world can interact with each other very easily, if I have to go to reach ends just to be able to play a game with a few people, I definitely would not consider the game alive.

Last but not least, the only games that I see still alive to day (that aren't just released/new/etc) are competitive games.

[FrozenArbiter]

Aaaaaaaaaaaactually, WC2 is kind of alive :P There's a private server that has a decent sized community playing on it from what I've heard.

I forget what the site is called tho, but they have a mini-version of WC2 up for dl that you can only use to play on their server (no bnet, no campaign), and tournaments and stuff going on.

Terrible nitpick and off-topic, I know :P

[Nicol Bolas]

Last but not least, the only games that I see still alive to day (that aren't just released/new/etc) are competitive games.

Or MMOs.

[Gifted]

I dont think anyone is against the developers providing for their families. Its against the microtransaction business model and any consequence it may have. Personally i think blizzard should make the product and then value it at what ever its value is. So if the game is more expensive than other games so be it, ill pay. I know that Ill get a great game and I dont mind paying for it. You buy Starcraft2 and gain access to this entire incredible esports expeirence with all that that entails.

What I dont want to do is buy a portion of the full game and then have to upgrade it periodically. I feel that bundled content/features provide much more incentive for quality than segemented features/content. Because of this I think that paying a one time fee for access to the full game is much better for long term profit and brand name integrity.

Archer, I'd like to ask you a question, an odd one.

You have two options by this statement..

1. Pay for the entire game, including all of the microtransactions at a initial higher purchase cost. This could theoretically mean that you pay about 50 USD for the game, but the cost is increased to 90 dollars, because you got the "complete" game whether you liked it or not. This means you could pay 40 dollars for a bunch of extra decals, the permission to download extra maps that are considered "premium" and by this nature, the map makers would not truly see money for their work so the incentive is lowered. In short, you paid 50 dollars for what you want, and 40 dollars for a lot of items, much of which you might not want.

2. You can pay 50 dollars for the complete game. Then there is about 40 dollars of additional OPTIONAL content. Let's say out of all that content, you only want to pay for 3 items... so the total cost of your game and the content you care about is about 53 USD.

The power of microtransactions is that you can create niche additions to a product and justify continued support for a product. I personally wouldn't care to buy "hello kitty". This set of questions work well with games that admit that their DLC will not effect gameplay (which Blizzard has confirmed)

It doesn't work for games that you pay for an advantage.

TL;DR - This is a COMPLETE game with optional content that may not appeal to everyone. I feel that people who argue that it's an "incomplete game with parts removed" might find themselves incorrect. This is all my own opinion.

[Pandonetho]

Or MMOs.

Yes, MMOs which have PvP.

Edit: Actually I take that back, I forgot about games like Mapelstory and I truly wonder why people even play it.

[ArcherofAiur]

Archer, I'd like to ask you a question, an odd one.

You have two options by this statement..

1. Pay for the entire game, including all of the microtransactions at a initial higher purchase cost. This could theoretically mean that you pay about 50 USD for the game, but the cost is increased to 90 dollars, because you got the "complete" game whether you liked it or not. This means you could pay 40 dollars for a bunch of extra decals, the permission to download extra maps that are considered "premium" and by this nature, the map makers would not truly see money for their work so the incentive is lowered. In short, you paid 50 dollars for what you want, and 40 dollars for a lot of items, much of which you might not want.

2. You can pay 50 dollars for the complete game. Then there is about 40 dollars of additional OPTIONAL content. Let's say out of all that content, you only want to pay for 3 items... so the total cost of your game and the content you care about is about 53 USD.

Option 1.

Now why would I choose option 1 even if their will be some features I might not even use? Because in the long run I believe option 1 leads to better quality and long term success of the franchise. With bundled services and content developers are incentivised to provide a higher quality experience with an emphasis on long term profit rather than short term. Look at how much work goes in to making a wrath of the lich king expansion versus an in-game pet.

[Gifted]

Sure I can agree that it's subjective. You may consider a game alive when you get together to play it with a friend once a year, but I consider a game alive when it actually has a decently sized community still going for it, not some tiny cult.

If I suddenly picked up Warcraft 2 and went onto B.net and saw no one on it, I would not consider it alive. There is no one to play it with and face it, playing with only your friends no matter how often is a completely different story than playing with a community.

We're in an age now where people from all over the world can interact with each other very easily, if I have to go to reach ends just to be able to play a game with a few people, I definitely would not consider the game alive.

Last but not least, the only games that I see still alive to day (that aren't just released/new/etc) are competitive games.

*nods* relating your subject back to the original thoughts on SC2. This may be a good supporting point on why they shifted the community from being "per game" and instead is making it a central point on the new battle.net.

This way, when people move on to Diablo 3, WoW expansions to be released, the future MMO and so on we can still be connected to those we enjoyed playing WC3 and SC2 with. It will expand the options instead of limit them, potentially extending the lifespan of all of their products by nature of the system.

[Gifted]

Option 1.

Now why would I choose option 1 even if their will be some features I might not even use? Because in the long run I believe option 1 leads to better quality and long term success of the franchise. With bundled services and content developers are incentivised to provide a higher quality experience with an emphasis on long term profit rather than short term.

Archer, let's expand your choice along the scope of 10 years. Are they allowed to create more DLC afterwards?

SIDE 1: If they do, then suddenly people can say "Wait, the reason we purchased it for 90 dollars is to avoid DLC... we're now getting jyped because we shouldn't have to deal with this.. we paid 40 extra dollars for this! This results in that DLC becoming "standard" as a precident in the game... it's no longer optional.

This has proven to create HORRIBLE respect for the company and is the path that a few games have been reputed horribly for. The fact is, by removing the DLC option, the ever increasing costs to create a game are not being equalized by increasing the actual lifespan profit of a game. You rip the customers off more by giving them a large plethora of content they may never use or want.. and then justifying that a higher cost exists.

This also disputes the "identity" of games as they currently are.. suddenly this game is 90 dollars and it's not THAT MUCH BETTER than other games. Companies can raise costs to match, or the demand for your own games will drop significantly, cause they can buy 2 other games at nearly the same quality for just 10 dollars more. The option is to reduce the price later to match demand/competition. This will be a recognized action in the community, making the customer feel empowered. This further reduces confidence in the product. Then every customer who purchased it for 90 feels jyped, feels like the quality of the product was poor compared to the cost. NOW, you've lost the advantage you have. You can then consider DLC, which is also something the customers will DOUBLY look poorly on now. The alternative is to not use DLC at this point, which means profit has plummeted, the sales have been penalized, and you can't do something likewise in the future... cause customers will just wait for it to reduce in price.

Side B: If they don't, then they have significantly reduces the lifespan of the product in today's different industry. In short, today's industry is based on DLC. While many people may feel that your continued free contributes to the game will be solid and respectful, the company will have higher costs for each game in this fashion and they'll have to match the high cost alternative..

This is a loss overall for the industry, as competitors who create less valuable games will have a chance to less their product at 90 dollars, and then even proceed to release DLC beside that cost.

In short, I hold an opinion that is on the other side of the subject as you. DLC, if handled correctly, contributes further to companies trying to offset the costs of creating a game which have been skyrocketing in the last 10 years. Correct DLC involves it feeling "optional" and is not "removed from the game" but rather enhances it over time. While I enjoy free content, I feel the only reason it's free is that in the industries' infancy, that was a way to get initial sales which was the primary source of income. Things have changed and costs are higher than ever to create a game. Many companies are struggling in the industry right now.

If DLC is handled incorrectly, then it gives bad name to DLC as a whole, and I feel is can be ridiculed from here to kingdom come. A common example of poor DLC include "obviously removing features from a game and releasing them as what's generally felt as a "forced purchase" to enjoy the game fully. Other DLC that I feel is a poor decision is making trivial content that costs too much. I personally think that the Wii-ware title "My life as a Dark Lord" for example has some rather poor DLC. You can start with 50 more energy in a round for 5 dollars. A single item which you get 2-3 of each "chapter". I would give that example as getting micro-content for a micro-cost. (I know other Wii-ware titles that double the entire content of the game for that cost... I'd consider that Macro-content for Micro-cost.)

[Triceron]

Option 1.

Now why would I choose option 1 even if their will be some features I might not even use? Because in the long run I believe option 1 leads to better quality and long term success of the franchise. With bundled services and content developers are incentivised to provide a higher quality experience with an emphasis on long term profit rather than short term. Look at how much work goes in to making a wrath of the lich king expansion versus an in-game pet.

The problem is it's not a very viable business solution.

The pros of Microtransactions is content over time and catering to all audiences. Not everyone will buy this $90 complete version, just as not everyone buys a Collector's Edition of a game when it comes out. Fronting all the content at the start is also not exactly a viable option, as you can see we could all be waiting 3 more years for the two expansions to be folded into the main game as a 'Gold' or 'Platinum' edition from the start.

While the time invested into Wrath creates this high-content package for $40 vs one ingame pet that costs $10, which is easier to buy for your online friends as gifts over the holidays? Would you ever buy a $90 game for your friends?