“when a player buys the StarCraft II box at retail, they will have the ability to play on the new Battle.net for free.”

————————————-

That is a PR 101 comment…

Vague… Leaves open options for the complete opposite or multiple end results.

Having the ability to play for free, doesn’t rule out or even dissuade the notion that their probably or may be another option for online play, etc.

Until you see a comment worded with such straight forward terms, nothing any of these people say can really be taken as fact.

And the microtransaction type system is not free to play… It’s just more business-speak. Microtransactions are just playing a non-complete game, or a game missing something that requires you to shell out more money to actually get the full product. The Sims 3 is the latest example…

Microtransactions in my opinion are worse than play2play… At least with paying up front you know what you are gonna spend and what you will get. Micro’s leave open the infinite possibilites of spending more and more to stay current.

Which is why micro transactions are becoming more popular, because it has the possibility for more revenue.

Also the title of the topic is misleading… It never stated that it would remain fee free, it just said there will be an “ability” to play for free. They never stated there would be no fees involved or even required, just that there is an ability to play free(possibilities for one could be a watered down version, etc).

I agree with Scooter.

They do not mention D3, either, just SC2. And it’s maybe just at retail that people’ll have the ability to play for free before being charged a monthly fee.

While the comment isn’t entirely vague, it does leave a lot out.

I’m not too worried about it, but ScooterMcGee, you said just what I was thinking. That statement seemed oddly worded.

“when a player buys the StarCraft II box at retail, they will have the ability to play on the new Battle.net for free.”

What, for like a month? When a player buys WoW for retail, they get to play for free too, for 30 days…

Anyway, they should just do what they want- but without LAN, there should be at least a free “connect to friends” for your own private game option. So you don’t get the ladder or events or chat rooms, maybe you have to know their ip or Bnet name, and cap the players at 2 or 3. Bnet Lite perhaps.

As far as extras go, I like them - IF they’re _extras_. The standalone product should be complete. 5 classes for example, and the 6th class could be an extra. A map creator or level designer could be an extra. Swords added in as a weapon class for $5 is not an extra. I’m done rambling, you get my point.

I would not mind battle.net 2.0 requiring say… $5 for every new account you open, with games such as SC2 and D3 coming with an account registration voucher as part of their retail package.

It would do much to derail spammers, whom I despise.

I would not like micro transactions.  I do not think blizzard needs to implement micro transactions.  They aren’t some foreign FTP Final Fantasy clone RPG barely getting by.  They’ve got WoW to bankroll them into infinity, not to mention the obscene amount of cash that SC2 and D3 retail will bring in.

Also, what will the maintenance of Battle.net 1.0 turn into in the post-2.0 world?

“Free battle.net 2.0 is impossible”, you cried. Very wise action from Blizzard. I don’t know why people just don’t get the difference between MMO and RTS/ARPG.

“Free battle.net 2.0 is impossible”, you cried. Very wise action from Blizzard. I don’t know why people just don’t get the difference between MMO and RTS/ARPG.

———————————

Well is there really a difference anymore? Payment wise?

Look at Hellgate: London… Action RPG right? Well…

The lines of games are so crossed now… Games like DoW2, CoH:ToV, Demigod, DotA… All crossing RTS with RPG.

MMORPGs can now be labeled as anything…

I agree with the loosest and most orginal definition that MMORPGs are monthly pay services… When APRGs start charging along that route, than it dissuades me from playing them.

D3 could very well go along the HGL(yes it died, a Hindenburg-esc death) route… Free b.net for the base, payment crap for stash xtra content, etc…

And saying that… I actually have a feeling D3 will go that route.

Which leads me back to my original post about the quote being vague…

Because from that exact quote you could easily decipher that as exactly what was said about how HG:L would be done payment wise.

Ability to play free… Stash, xtra content, money, money, money.

My opinion is that MMORPG’s in the most true form of them(EQ,AC,WoW,etc) are fine with monthly payments… But when RPGs, RTS, etc start charging for either “low end” monthly fees, or even worse swindle in the micro crap, then how can you draw a line anymore?

It’s all business… And in business your PR people when announcing things, use vague, riot quelling lingo til exact facts are released then it’s fire control.

“Until you see a comment worded with such straight forward terms, nothing any of these people say can really be taken as fact.”

Because Blizzard is known for lying in the past? This isn’t EA. It’s worded in a straight-foward fashion; it’s your choice whether or not to read into it, and you’re grasping pretty hard on those straws, bud. Hey - let’s dig even deeper - “StarCraft II box at retail” could mean that digital downloaders don’t get to go online - because that makes just as much sense, right?

It isn’t a “PR 101 comment” because Blizzard is a gaming giant, and if they were to “all of a sudden” start charging for SC2, at least, after making this comment? Who wants to deal with that kind of negative attention?
Playing on battle.net will be free, as so many of us have already speculated.

His answer still doesn’t foreclose something like an open b.net and closed b.net split.

Free to play SC2 was almost necessary though, as it is such a multiplayer focused game, it is episodic in nature, and it’s an rts.  Having no way to play multiplayer without paying would have hurt Blizz I think.

Also, we really don’t know anything about d3.  Will it be sort of episodic as well?  Will they perhaps do endgame type updates like they have with WoW every 3-6 months? etc.

“Also, we really don’t know anything about d3.  Will it be sort of episodic as well?  Will they perhaps do endgame type updates like they have with WoW every 3-6 months? etc.”

See, now these are the questions that I want answers to. :D

As for splitting b.net again, I highly doubt they’d do that to begin with, especially seeing as how D3 isn’t supporting LAN play. I don’t think they have a reason to encourage hacking and duping on what is (let’s be honest here) a fairly redundant setup.
And again, this is something they would have mentioned. There is not much vagary in the statement. Blizzard doesn’t have that kind of duplicitous history. They’re one of the few game companies that I will take at their word. Just one man’s opinion though.