Bad Rumour

[Airandius]

Now most of the sane people here realized that Blizzard just became worse then EA games.
Mainly because of the 2 expansion idea for SC2 like come on...

But that's not even half of the bad news.
Rumour says that Blizzard is not going to make Lan options for D3 and you need to pay to go on the new Bnet.
My friend saw this at 4chan, it got deleted however so there is no real proof thus saying its a rumour.

I hope they wont do it but it all seems in fain... Wc3 will be the last good game Blizzard has ever made.

 

[The_Silent]

Damn Blizzard They've been to greedy

 

[Airandius]

Idd, I might give up on gaming because of all this crap.. =(

 

[HappyTauren]

Oh noes, a gaming company wants more money, I should definitely slit my wrists. Grow up people, they are all capitalists... and get a life. It is so nice outside, you know.

 

[Tyranid]

*sigh* B.net will be FREE, but they are thinking of some optional features that you have to pay for.

And HappyTauren, it's not nice outside when it's FUCKING RAINING!

 

[Dr Super Good]

Blizzard said that activision is forcing battlenet to have some pay to play feature for both SC2 and D3, however they have stated that people will still be able to play for free.

In SC2 it will most likly be some PvP melee match thing with chatroom decoration.

D3 will probably be larger character limate or better connection for payers.

Currently they have not said which features will be pay to use but if they are anything content related blizzard will have major sucerity problems with their worker/managers lives.

As long as I can play my SC2 custom games for free and use everything everyone else can, then I will be happy with the product. With D3 if I can create 8 odd characters and play with everyone else with the same restrictions on level/gear then I do not care, even if payers get an aura or gain levels 10% faster.

 

[~Void~]

Now most of the sane people here realized that Blizzard just became worse then EA games.
Mainly because of the 2 expansion idea for SC2 like come on...

But that's not even half of the bad news.
Rumour says that Blizzard is not going to make Lan options for D3 and you need to pay to go on the new Bnet.
My friend saw this at 4chan, it got deleted however so there is no real proof thus saying its a rumour.

I hope they wont do it but it all seems in fain... Wc3 will be the last good game Blizzard has ever made.

I heard this somewhere else as well. I believe it is true.

 

[Just_Spectating]

you have to realize that Blizzard are billionaires.

 

[Dr Super Good]

you have to realize that Blizzard are billionaires.

And you have to realise the logistics involved with making a game. Back in the days of WC3, a game used atmost 1 GB which meant only 1 GB of data had to be created. Modern games have a massive 8 GB of data or more. This does not linearly scale up 8 times the ammount of production cost. To try and program it in a reasonable time more emploies are needed which results in more wages. On top of that more computers are needed which result in more expendature for equipement. Also it means that more data has to be properly tested which wastes more time (think of all the model changes made in SC2 already). On top of this the building where they work needs to be payed for. Finally there are the share holders who also want to see a lot of money.

And to think the price of a game has not risin proportionally to the ammount of effort it needs.

Lets say you payed 20£ odd for the full WC3 + TFT. For SC2 (no expansions) you should easilly have to pay 80£-160£ if you were paying a fixed rate per unit data of a game. The complete set of SC2 will probably be 80£ atmost on release which will mean they will make greatly reduced revenu for the ammount of effort they put in. Thus they might realise that they will not break even through game sales alone thus they are planning on having some pay features for online.

Honestly I do not care a shit as long as it does not give me a disadvantage over people who pay ingame. I am willing to put up with slower EXP gain or less MF or even the lack of a special graphical aura than people who pay but I will not put up with reduced damage or locked abilities or pay to use items / classes. Battlenet will probably remain free, just new features might be pay to use (like infinate firends list or the ability to create unlimate characters on your account or even not being kicked from games due to anti cheat methods).

 

[Airandius]

Don't they had enough money now? Like 20 euro for each month wow, an averig of million players? For a coupel of years? = Alot of money.

It's rly bad to se them screw up their games, and I know it's nice outside happy tauren, that's why I'm giving up on gaming. viva la sunlight!

 

[Dr Super Good]

yes, their revenu is pretty high, too bad revenu is not equal to proffit.

Firstly each WoW user uses atleast 10% of that money in surver upkeep, not toforget maintinence (servers to break and need replacing). Secondly blizzard pays 1000s of moderators in WoW money (yes they pay them to play) so that the rules are inforced, each gets a decent ammount of money. Thirdly does WoW not still get new content? All those manhours used to make it are payed you know as well as the equipment used during those man hours.

Do not forget that all that WoW profit has been going to help pay for SC2 and D3 as currently they must have eaten up a fortune each in development costs.

So there is no dought that WoW is making a profit but a lot of people probably estimate it to be.

 

[LordDz]

4chan is your source?




If they ever did it, they would be flamed to death.
And EA is greedier.
They want us to pay to be able to play Gears of War online ^^ .

 

[Dr Super Good]

Paying should save you time. E.G. if you are a battlenet member who is paying you should have to spend 25-50% less time to get the same level of gear as someone who is not paying. That model would be perfectly fair as arleady a large number of people illegally buy from D2 item sites with real money just to save time so by doing this it would make such item shops harder to run and also give people what they want.

 

[Newuser]

Now most of the sane people here realized that Blizzard just became worse then EA games.

I'll list several reasons why EA Games is really bad if you're serious.

Now most of the sane people here realized that Blizzard just became worse then EA games.
Mainly because of the 2 expansion idea for SC2 like come on...

But that's not even half of the bad news.
Rumour says that Blizzard is not going to make Lan options for D3 and you need to pay to go on the new Bnet.
My friend saw this at 4chan, it got deleted however so there is no real proof thus saying its a rumour.

I hope they wont do it but it all seems in fain... Wc3 will be the last good game Blizzard has ever made.

Mainly because of the 2 expansion idea for SC2 like come on...

Here's something I posted on the other thread in the SC2 forums

I don't get it. Why don't they develop the entire thing into one package?

See below

2ndly we get SC2 SOONER! 3rd by releasing one game, then people can playtest and get it perfectly balanced, then they release new game with balance changes.

You got that right. If they didn't make expansion packs and just simply packed it all at once, we'd probably have to wait until 2011 until we'd get starcraft 2.

Click for the link

"I don't know how long it's going to take...it could be [a year or more between each one]," producer Sigaty revealed to MTV Multplayer

He said "a year or more between each one" that means that means that the expansion packs will add A LOT of stuff.

What's better:
1. Getting SC2 as early as 2009 but having to buy expansion packs in 2010 and 2011.

OR

2. Saving $60(assuming expansion is $30 each) but having to wait all the way until 2011 until you get Starcraft 2.

Orc Campaign.
Buff Editor
Warcraft III - Neutral -> Neutral Heroes -> Goblin Tinker
Warcraft III - Neutral -> Neutral Heroes -> Firelord
Warcraft III - Neutral -> Neutral Heroes -> Goblin Alchemist

If you want it the old way, remove TFT.

The Orc Campaign was unfinished when it came out in Frozen Throne(At least when I remembered it), they just finished it through patches.

Yes they also added "just" 3 heroes through patches.

But what Blizzard DID NOT do was give out The Frozen Throne for free through a patch. That's what they didn't do.

Blizzard could also have given out all their games for free, in fact, their company could be non-profit and all their employees just do volunteer work.

But they don't, because they do it for profit, to make money.

YES, it's true, Blizzard wants to make this thing called money.

Point is Blizzard isn't a charity guys. Also, I wouldn't really call Blizzard greedy or annoying(EA Games with their Securom and 3 limit install) either.

Blizzard is just a company that makes video games, good video games that is.

Although Blizzard isn't a charity, it sometimes feels like it. Compared to other RTS game companies, Blizzard has offered a lot with Starcraft and Warcraft 3, I'll list what I think is their "charity":

1. Battle.net

2. Starcraft Editor and Warcraft 3 editor, definitely. A lot of companies don't ship their games with powerful and easy to use editors like Blizzard's editors.

3. Patches/updates. Now, a lot of companies do patches but what company releases patches for their nearly 10 year old stuff(Starcraft 1 for example)?

Anyway, Blizzard hasn't really disappointed me yet, I don't expect them to disappoint me in the future.

I'm sure that the expansion packs will be totally worth their money. All Blizzard games so far have been worth their money(WoW is debatable but besides WoW, worth their money).

Anyway, we'll have to see. I say we should wait and see how much new content they have in their new expansion pack before we complain or be surprised.

Again, Blizzard hasn't disappointed me so far, I'm going to assume they (again) won't disappoint me when Starcraft 2 and expansions come out.

 

[Airandius]

Already reacted to that, I honestly don't care what other people think.
Most of them think Blizzard is still cool and stuf, it's a small thing we call propaganda!

I have an good example to show you what I'm talking about but it's kind of extreme so be warned when u open this box (it's referal to WO II).

Be warned when u open this.

Just take a look at WO II, there were some Germans that knew Hitler was doing bad things. Yet he still managed to make alot of people believe jews were bad and they were the best, that they had the right to kill over 6 million people.
And he did this all with a small thing called propaganda, the exact same thing companies use nowadays to make u buy a product or in this case make you pay for games like Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2. Sure they might look good but everything behind the scenes liek the cost op paying for multiplayer etx is just, lame.

As a second note, yes I do agree Blizzard has become worse then EA games, how sad it might be. This doe not mean I'm going to play games EA makes.
We are living in dark times when it comes to games (and also economy but thats not on-topic).

I'm giving up on gaming, I'm almost grown up anyway, need to find myself a job and a nice girl instaid of the regular wierd ones. (There sure are alot of them sjees).

If you want, go ahaid buy and pay for those games, my money will go to more important things.

 

[Direfury]

Did anyone else see the part where this rumor started on 4chan? Troll site, troll rumor.

 

[Angry_Bovine]

I don't understand how you can expect better services from a company (yes, new games are a better service b/c of the tech required for the improved graphics and what not that you expect from new games) without a similar increase in price. Come to think about it, games don't even factor in inflation that much. You're paying for not just the games, but all the patches and fixes that come with it. Yes, I understand that patches are usually fixes. But I'm talking about content patches, and "free" content such as the World Editor (which I'm sure many people love) and Battle.net.

And plus, the info for this thread was from 4chan. It can't really be considered reliable.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

when it's FUCKING RAINING!

Same!

 

[Gilles]

I don't understand how you can expect better services from a company (yes, new games are a better service b/c of the tech required for the improved graphics and what not that you expect from new games) without a similar increase in price. Come to think about it, games don't even factor in inflation that much. You're paying for not just the games, but all the patches and fixes that come with it. Yes, I understand that patches are usually fixes. But I'm talking about content patches, and "free" content such as the World Editor (which I'm sure many people love) and Battle.net.

And plus, the info for this thread was from 4chan. It can't really be considered reliable.

Games go up with inflation, you just haven't lived long enough to see much inflation; except in oil and maybe a few other things.

Also like you said, patches are usually fixes, and I don't want to pay for them to fix their games. I want it fixed before I even buy it, and if it isn't, they better damn well give it to me for free since I payed for a working game.

Did anyone else see the part where this rumor started on 4chan? Troll site, troll rumor.

qft.

 

[Night_Gob]

Now most of the sane people here realized that Blizzard just became worse then EA games.
Mainly because of the 2 expansion idea for SC2 like come on...

But that's not even half of the bad news.
Rumour says that Blizzard is not going to make Lan options for D3 and you need to pay to go on the new Bnet.
My friend saw this at 4chan, it got deleted however so there is no real proof thus saying its a rumour.

I hope they wont do it but it all seems in fain... Wc3 will be the last good game Blizzard has ever made.

If battlenet will cost money, how many will just go "the pirate way"
and play it offline? so.. I think they would actually earn more money if they kept battlenet free.
But its their choice and their game.

 

[Just_Spectating]

why would they need to put more PtP things. they didnt for warcraft/starcraft/diablo series (as in the games), so sequels definantly wouldnt have PtP either. They'll make the same amount of money they had made from warcraft/starcraft/diablo and just keep making more and more games.

 

[Smartman]

This is stupid. Blizzard is nothing like EA and will never become worse then it. Plus, if you hate the company, then stop complaining. It's annoying to just even see these useless threads being made to prove NO POINT what so ever. None of you know what it costs or what it requires to make a game perfect to make the gamers happy. When Diablo 3 was released people already started complaining about it and yet they still know it's in god damn development and that anything can change. If you're going to just whine like a idiot at least keep it to you're self because like I said, these threads go no where.

Me for one, don't really care if I have to pay for Battle.net on Diablo 3. I've been waiting so long for it that I'll pay whatever the hell they need and start playing it. Also, don't start bringing EA into this. Their games are getting better then they were before and if you really have to install a game 3 times, that's you're own fault so don't be blaming the company for it. I like that option because you can't just hand it out to a bunch of friends and they use it off you. We already have torrents these days that make full games downloadable. If I was making a game, I would want money and people to enjoy it.

Basicly, if no companies had money, their would be no games for us to play. EA has so many games and other people to pay they need the money but some people don't even use common sense and just whine about it. If you're going to start flaming about a company, do it right.

 

[Tyranid]

Abit off yet also abit on-topic, but I find it rather funny that Blizzard is releasing these recent news (sc II split into 3, Battle.net getting some payable features), while at the same time (IMO) EA is getting more interested in quality games... I mean, they bought Mythic Entertainment who were (and are) working on Warhammer Online, which in my opinnion turned out good.

Also Dead Space by EA Redwood Shores looks very promising and has had positive reviews from what I've seen. Things sure are becoming interesting.

 

[Joe-black-5]

well i never played diablo 2 online and it was, now that it may cost money i will never play it online

 

[bobmanone]

lol 4chan

 

[Malf]

The Pay-to-Access-New-Features rumor is actually true, there's even an article about it interviewing a Blizzard worker.

If I can't afford it, then I won't buy it. If I want it, I'll save up for it. Simple logic, no reason to complain about the cost, that's life.

 

[Airandius]

Well, the fact that people are actually stupid enough to pay for stuf like this is what makes them do it, screwing up games for people that do on like to spend alot of money on something stupid as a few hours of gameplay.

Knowing me, I wont even take a look at the game, I'll download or borrow it from a friend and play it offline a while unless lan is an option, and it's not. They wont add that either, which sucks if u want to play it with more people at your own home.

Let's face it, games are becomming more stupid every time a new game is released, some games like Assasins Creed or w/e are lacking in gameplay alot.
You just play it, and yes at first it's fun, but after a while it's just the same thing over and over again.

Conclusion: don't go adding prices to stuf to gain extra bullshit that only nerds without a private life will purshase, it makes people less fond of games.
To bad (and no offence) the world is filled with retards that have to much money. xD

 

[UchihaSasuke.gr]

Oh noes, a gaming company wants more money, I should definitely slit my wrists. Grow up people, they are all capitalists... and get a life. It is so nice outside, you know.

I agree with that.

If Blizzard is to make something like this,then it would suck.It would be better to stop in wc3 then.

 

[redsew]

Well, I hate Diablo, I also know that I hate Diablo 2, I also know that I will never like Diablo, its so boring, I dont understand the point of the game. I think that BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT should stop making diablo.

 

[Gilles]

Well, I hate Diablo, I also know that I hate Diablo 2, I also know that I will never like Diablo, its so boring, I dont understand the point of the game. I think that BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT should stop making diablo.

Alright, I have no problem with you not liking Diablo, but please, provide some reasons or just don't post.

 

[Archian]

I belive Bashiok already stated that there WILL be LAN options in Diablo 3 and that you don't have to pay for Battle.net.

 

[Direfury]

Well, I hate Diablo, I also know that I hate Diablo 2, I also know that I will never like Diablo, its so boring, I dont understand the point of the game. I think that BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT should stop making diablo.

Does anyone else agree that these types of people should commit mass suicide?

 

[Ash]

Blizzard said that activision is forcing battlenet to have some pay to play feature for both SC2 and D3, however they have stated that people will still be able to play for free.

Proof right now or you instantly become a giant asshole for slandering Activision.

 

[monchopim]

lol , i wont buy diablo 3 if i have to pay for playing on BNet , hope it is a rumour... i'll burn blizzard and BNet if it is not... ....

 

[Dark.Revenant]

I hope the paid features are something useless, like paying to have a colored name.

 

[Linaze]

I agree, paying for "necessary" features would just be dumb, let it at the height of colored names like you said, Revenant.

 

[monchopim]

I hope the paid features are something useless, like paying to have a colored name.

agree...

today i calculate some things with my friends (if im not wrong , WoW have a lot of player , maybe like 5 millions or so or im just "dreaming") , we calculated how much money they earn with world of warcraft , and the sum of all this was extremelly high , so i see no reason on adding a price to diablo 3... it will be useless and less people would play it !.

 

[brad.dude03]

WoW has over 10 million subscribers right now.

That means nothing. Blizzard is a CORPORATION. What do corporations do? What is their primary goal? TO MAKE MONEY.

Blizzard is a very successful corporation.

 

[Airandius]

Yes, they are a corporation, but if you charge to many alot of people might not want to buy it.
This could very well result in a lower profit for them, but it will only hit them when it's to late.
It always happens..
So many companies have 'died' because they were overconfident about their own abilities.

Blizzard: Lol, we are uberz lets charge more moneys so noobz will buy are gamez and we get bling bling! Ya lets do thatzzzzz1!!!

- 1 Month Later -

Blizzard: Oh noez to many peoplez dun wanan tha game!!! Whyz??? It be uberz!!
Now we dun make enough bling bling and we go redz!!! NAUWHSZZZZ

- Blizzard Dies -

I know it wont happen, but they should be careful they might get less profit that way if u get what I mean.
Only small companies would 'die' because of this.

 

[Gilles]

Pretty sure Blizzard as a whole is not that dumb. They know what they're doing, they've only made a handful of the most popular games ever.

 

[NearbyHermit]

Hope the SP feature will be fully playable!

 

[Captain Griffen]

I fail to see why it'd make any sense for Blizzard to run SCII at a loss because WoW is a cash cow... Even though I'm against b.net costing anything, it's still a shitty argument for it, when there are far better ones.

 

[monchopim]

WoW has over 10 million subscribers right now.

That means nothing. Blizzard is a CORPORATION. What do corporations do? What is their primary goal? TO MAKE MONEY.

Blizzard is a very successful corporation.

it is a corporation and making money is their goal , but at the same time , its not convenient to make the games cost that much , cuz you may loose sales , and that way , you loose money...

 

[brad.dude03]

At 10 million and rapidly growing, I don't think they have to worry about a minority of people who can't shell out for their game. They make a lot more money at this price than they would if they lowered it.

 

[Ash]

I don't believe someone's actually arguing that blizzard isn't doing their job right.

10,000,000*15(USD (middle range of their scale))= 150,000,000

They make that much, per month. They won't be running SC2 at a loss, because people will still buy it. By making SC2 BNet features, they're going to be making even more money because I can guarantee a lot of saddacts will still buy it.

 

[monchopim]

so do you think diablo 3 will have to be payed as well?

maybe adding diablo 3 some "special features" to be payed on BNet , but all the other things stay the same , though this was already saied but i will repeate it xD...

 

[Airandius]

I don't believe someone's actually arguing that blizzard isn't doing their job right.

10,000,000*15(USD (middle range of their scale))= 150,000,000

They make that much, per month. They won't be running SC2 at a loss, because people will still buy it. By making SC2 BNet features, they're going to be making even more money because I can guarantee a lot of saddacts will still buy it.

All in favor to slay all saddacts (lol did u mean addicts?) in this world say aye!
AYE

Though... sure they want to make a lot of money, they can go ahead and make money.
As long as there is single player options people will just dl it. (Most games are cracked and dl-able.)
As long as there are ways to create servers people will just play on non-blizzard servers. (World of Warcraft)

Just by being money addicts people might want to look for alternative ways.. And there are a lot.
I just borrow the game for a few days, play it till it bores me, and give it back. xD
In some cases I just copy it and play it for a few more days. xD

 

[Ash]

All in favor to slay all saddacts (lol did u mean addicts?) in this world say aye!
AYE

No, saddacts, sad-acts, sad acts.

People that suck, basically.

 

[~Void~]

Blizzard is worse than EA. The reasoning behind this is simple: Blizzard is getting worse and EA is getting better.

 

[brad.dude03]

Ea isn't getting better, and Blizzard isn't getting any worse than it ever was. You're just delusional if you ask me.

As for D3, and paying, I don't think so. Look at Hellgate. Hellgate was basically a crappier version of Diablo that made you pay to play online, and it failed.