Cold-blooded: Blizzard considers charging for Battle.net |
|
| BY Joshua Kopstein Sep. 1st, 2009 | More on: |
While it’s true that Blizzard has always liked money, it’s certainly interesting to note how their merger with Activision last July has caused their love of currency to visibly intensify. The sharp left turn taken by Blizzard’s marketing strategies first became apparent when they announced that they would be releasing the upcoming StarCraft II in not one, but three separate installments. Then they announced that they’d be nuking LAN support, requiring copies of the software to be verified through Battle.net (though there’s been an update on that). Needless to say, a lot of people were very unhappy. Now CEO Paul Sams has revealed in an interview with gamesindustry.biz that Blizzard is considering “all sorts of possibilities” in regards to Battle.net, including the idea of charging players for use of the service.
Before you run out the door to douse yourself with gasoline in protest of the impending DRM apocalypse, keep in mind that Sams isn’t speaking exclusively about methods for milking moolah. Rather, he’s trying to give consumers a general idea of Battle.net’s possible future. Sams says that free or not, the Battle.net platform is long overdue for some changes to push it beyond the simple matchmaking service it once was, stating that the revisions will “have long-term positive implications for gamers.” The CEO also expressed confidence that Blizzard is working for the benefit of its loyal fanbase, citing the “trust relationship” that Blizzard has built with its fans over the years. Even so, charging players for the ability to play online with games they’ve already payed for is a pretty dastardly idea for a publisher to have these days. If Battle.net ceases to be a free platform, I can only hope that the massive overhaul Blizzard is planning warrants the expenses it might impose.
September 2nd, 2009
at 7:48 am
I think saying Blizzard loves money is a slightly harsh criticism. That’s a given when you’re a company trying to grow and continue to make top quality products. It would be one thing if Blizzard was whoring out the 5th Starcraft title in the past 3 years, but they’re not. They take advantage of very long development cycles and have in the past 15 years, released the most polished and ground breaking games in the genre. Every penny you spend o a Blizzard product is well deserved. 11 years after the fact, Starcraft is still widely considered to be THE pinnacle of RTS games and is the most RTS game used in the competitive spaces.
It has little to do with Acti, Battle.net is going to be a well polished service. You hardly hear people bitching about having to pay for Xbox Live, but having to pay for a similar service is an out rage? Come on now. Blizzard has never done things for the sake of money, they always do it for the sake of the game. The Starcraft in three installments might look like a money grabbing scheme, but it’s really to give players a FULL experience for each race in the game. It’s just like flipping out over L4D2, who gives a shit if they’re all quality top notch products we all win.
September 2nd, 2009
at 8:07 am
That article doesn’t suggest paying to use Battle.net at all. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but it seems to allude more to possibilities in the sense of third parties. As in possibly becoming more Steam or XBox Live-esque. Remember, the man behind XBox Live is behind updating Battle.net. That and considering their announcement about letting SC2 modders charge, I really don’t get a sense that they’re going in a pay to play direction.
September 2nd, 2009
at 8:44 am
Yeah, once again, this isn’t about Bnet costing money per se to play games, etc. Just to buy special content or use special services. Gaming and chatting ought to stay free, from what I’ve seen.
September 2nd, 2009
at 8:50 am
Just for the record, I’m not coming at you Josh. I’m just challenging the notion that Blizzard = greedy in general.
September 2nd, 2009
at 7:06 pm
@Emmanuel: I never said they were greedy, I just noted that they like money, and how their marketing tactics seem to have been more aggressive since joining with Acti. Make connections if you want. I just think it’s odd is all, especially since Blizzard’s past reputation seems to run contrary to their current M.O.
All game companies like money. That’s (in part) why they make games :)
And the original article mentions “the possibility of a charging mechanism” for Battle.net — I agree that this could mean a number of things, not necessarily charging for the service itself, so perhaps I could have been more precise in that regard. Upon taking a second look, I do see that he’s talking about charging for content. I was just choosing to focus on the possibility of Blizzard charging for the service.
Lastly, I expected to hear that ‘double-standard’ comparison to XBL, and to that I’ll say this: I’m more concerned with the idea of a *publisher* charging extra for the use of online play in their games. While I’m certainly not defending MS for charging money for their service, Xbox Live is a platform owned by a company that’s behind a major gaming console. So having them (as a console manufacturer) charge for access to a robust online community featuring thousands of titles from hundreds of different publishers is not nearly as ludicrous in my mind as a *single* publisher doing the same thing for a service that only supports their own games.
Any and all nerd rage in this post was regarding something purely hypothetical. Sorry if I came across as attempting to vilify Blizzard. Y’know I loves them <3
September 2nd, 2009
at 7:10 pm
And as unnecessarily caustic as this post is, you have to admit: The pun I made in the article’s title is AWESOME. ;)
September 3rd, 2009
at 2:07 am
I think they should just increase the up-front payment for the games they’re going to release to cover the expenses of Battle.NET (like add $5-10 per game), if that’s possible, instead of having a pay-to-play kind of setup.