View Full Version : Pay to play? Assassins?
Anyone know if this is going to be pay to play?
Are assassins going to be in it?
Looking forward to this...
There are currently no definitive answers for either of these questions.
Nostavar
02-07-2008, 00:49
Pay to play is very unlikely though, for a non-MMO on battle.net.
Well, i'm pulling for no and yes.
If it's pay to play... then screw that.
If there's no assassins... then it's a tough call.
Apocalypse
02-07-2008, 02:35
lol if someone does not get d3 just cause a class from d2 is not in 3 then they were never a real fan anyway. i mean seriously i kinda wish all the classes would be replaced even if the replacements are very much alike the old characters
WoW has totally brainwashed everyone into thinking that games with online will be pay to play...
Apocalypse
02-07-2008, 02:45
i said it with d2 and i will say it with d3, i wont mind a pay to play online service at all. the game is still playable single player and players would still be able to get onto open bnet for free, so if they charge for closed and have added content on the pay servers i am all for it. hell it might even keep a few idiots off the servers though i doubt it.
I'd actually much rather it be ptp, WoW gets new updates like monthly because of it.
Besides, what's a measly $10-$20 per month? Most working people make that in an hour and little kid's parents probably wouldn't mind paying it.
And like that guy said I'd much prefer all the classes to be brand new.
I would much rather have it pay to play. Although I don't want to pay for a game, but I will if that means less hackers and less bots. Even if it only lasts for a little bit. I support pay to play, but at the same time, there has to be content patches or something that gives us a new experience to the game on either a monthly basis or by three months at a time.
Apocalypse
02-07-2008, 04:32
the bottom line is, if bliz is making monthly cash from people who already paid for the game, they are gonna put more into the game to keep those paying customers happy.
Sequitur
02-07-2008, 04:43
Yeah, I'd pay if it meant better security. That said, if this B.net 2.0 is supposed to be the answer to sliced bread that Blizz claims, it might have all improvements with no cost. Or they might charge us two oxen and a donkey per month for upkeep.
Who can say?
Yeah, I'd pay if it meant better security. That said, if this B.net 2.0 is supposed to be the [b]answer to sliced bread[b/] that Blizz claims, it might have all improvements with no cost. Or they might charge us two oxen and a donkey per month for upkeep.
Who can say?
Peanut butter?
Sequitur
02-07-2008, 06:08
Peanut butter?
For the sliced bread? Sounds like a plan! :smug:
lol if someone does not get d3 just cause a class from d2 is not in 3 then they were never a real fan anyway.
Yeah, you're right. You probably know better than me anyway.
Jaquiezz
02-07-2008, 06:28
I'd actually much rather it be ptp, WoW gets new updates like monthly because of it.
Besides, what's a measly $10-$20 per month? Most working people make that in an hour and little kid's parents probably wouldn't mind paying it.
And like that guy said I'd much prefer all the classes to be brand new.
This is some one who doesn't work for his or her money. If you did, you would know that 10-20$ a month is complete BS. Plenty of other games get monthly or regular updates without PtP, as did D2 when it was first released.
For all the kiddies out there who just grab mommy and daddy's credit card and waste away half their adolescence on a game, sure, dropping $15 a month is not a problem. But as a college student in a state where it is next to impossible to find work, let alone good pay, paying a couple hundred dollars a year to play a game I might play at most 4-5 hours a week is steep, especially when it will cost 60 to purchase. Making 10 bucks an hour, to clear 15 after taxes you have to make about 21/22. Thats over two hours of work, just to continue playing the game. I would much rather put that money in my pocket and maybe go out to dinner, or better yet, buy a game that doesn't cost me money to keep playing.
This is some one who doesn't work for his or her money. If you did, you would know that 10-20$ a month is complete BS. Plenty of other games get monthly or regular updates without PtP, as did D2 when it was first released.
For all the kiddies out there who just grab mommy and daddy's credit card and waste away half their adolescence on a game, sure, dropping $15 a month is not a problem. But as a college student in a state where it is next to impossible to find work, let alone good pay, paying a couple hundred dollars a year to play a game I might play at most 4-5 hours a week is steep, especially when it will cost 60 to purchase. Making 10 bucks an hour, to clear 15 after taxes you have to make about 21/22. Thats over two hours of work, just to continue playing the game. I would much rather put that money in my pocket and maybe go out to dinner, or better yet, buy a game that doesn't cost me money to keep playing.
It's called a paid internship. Yes, they do exist. I doubt there is no job in you town that you can do and go to school. I am sorry if your too proud to work at mc donalds. I am a working man. I work hard for my money. Yet I am able to pay for my car payment, house bills, WoW, credit card, and have money to have fun with. I don't make alot of money. I just understand how to manage it. Maybe you should change your major.
And if you just can't take into grasp of what I am saying, then don't buy the game. I know this may sound harsh, but it's the truth. Most people won't speak it. I am not most people.
This is some one who doesn't work for his or her money. If you did, you would know that 10-20$ a month is complete BS. Plenty of other games get monthly or regular updates without PtP, as did D2 when it was first released.
I'd rather it be PtP. Regardless of whether you think 10$ a month is "complete BS" or not, it's worth 10$ to me if I can get a game that gets content updates (and no, D2 never got constant updates, it got bug fixes, it got 2 content updates, several years later.)
See the thing is, if you look at it like "does it cost blizzard 10$ to deliver this?" of course it's not worth $10. But if you look at it like "does anyone offer a better service for less than 10$" then it becomes much more of a value judgment.
But as for me, it's well worth $10 a month to have an enhanced experience with enhanced content. I'd welcome any other business plan, and I would also like to see content packs for the game released frequently, though I'm skeptical whether this could be done well or not.
P.S. I doubt the Assassin will be in the game. For two simple reasons. 1) there is only 5 chars slated for D3 and is generally not considered a "core class" (I expect a bow user, and a spell caster to round out the first four) and out of the 3 'hybrid' classes in D2, I would guess either they do something new or something closer to the paladin. Also, the Asn was the 6/7th character in d2. and 2) the witch doctor has the assassin's first trap skill already.
Yeah, i think you're right on no assassin.
I thought about it yesterday, this is how i think it will go.
Barb
Witch
Sorc
Zon
Pali
I really don't think it can go any other way, unless they start combining classes, and that would just be weird.
Pay to play at $5 a month would be nice. I am not concerned about content patches but rather security patches for secure servers. If people want free online play, give them open servers.
$5 is nothing. $5 is more like a donation if anything. $10 is the base rate for pay to play games all over the net.
they should find a way to make it pay to play but not per month but per hours of play.
I'm a working man and can play 4h a day maximum (more in the weekends) but school kids or assians doing this for a living can play more (the school kids have 2-3 months of vacation), so they pay less for hours played while I pay more.
so it would be cool if u for example can buy 120h of play hours, that would be like 5-6 weeks not counting weekends for me, and only 5 days for someone that plays 24/7, u could also go on vacation take a break whenever u want and not loose playing time / money
or like next poster says pay monthly but make it a game month not just a 30 days in a row, so that the days u do,n't play are not just wasted money but that u can get as much time playing the game for the same amount of money as anyone else, the persons that can play more pay more and vice versa
ofc kids don't have the same money a working person does but they have more time, it will never be easy to find a middle way in it
They are also limited to 4 hours at a time max of gameplay. So i don't want that. I will stick with per month. It has never failed yet.
Edit: Actually being able to pay monthly but in a different fashion would be great. Something like you pay for 1 month. That 1 month is gameplay time, not 30 days consecutively.
Apocalypse
02-07-2008, 19:52
Yeah, i think you're right on no assassin.
I thought about it yesterday, this is how i think it will go.
Barb
Witch
Sorc
Zon
Pali
I really don't think it can go any other way, unless they start combining classes, and that would just be weird.
you really think they only plan to make 1 new character class?
Barb/Zon/Sorc is backbone.
What, do they drop the Pali? A class that's been there since the original? Anyway, they have to have a healer. Give healing to the sorc?
It's all speculation, but i only really see room for maybe one more class.
What are your thoughts?
Apocalypse
03-07-2008, 03:05
Barb/Zon/Sorc is backbone.
What, do they drop the Pali? A class that's been there since the original? Anyway, they have to have a healer. Give healing to the sorc?
It's all speculation, but i only really see room for maybe one more class.
What are your thoughts?
i understand your point calling the sorc a backbone class, i agree that a pure caster is indeed needed for a game like this. however it does not have to be a sorc.
now the amazon i think has to be let go. amazons are women only and with the new thing of all classes being male and female it kinda rules her out. however we need a ranged attacker, bows are damn fun imo. thats where a ranger type could step in. now a ranger could also be used as a melee light class with good duel weilding skills as well as a bow/xbow tree(this assumes trees are still in). something like this could kinda play as a mix of assassin and amazon
that leaves the paladin. now if they make the ranger a ranged/melee mix that leaves the paladin slot open for pretty much anything at all bliz wants to try. suggestions here could ranghe anything to a cleric, or a enchanter type of char. possibly a shapeshifter like the druids return or another another class with shapeshifting skills. you could even bring back the paladin if you wish and i am sure that would make many happy while at the same time angering many lol.
anyway thats pretty much my thoughts on the entire thing
What, do they drop the Pali? A class that's been there since the original? Anyway, they have to have a healer. Give healing to the sorc?
Huh? Pali hasnt been there since the origonal. Unless you mean D2 classic, then by the same argument Necro has been there since the original.
That being said, D1 the character was a Sorcerer (Rogue, Warrior and Sorcerer) in D2 that was simply transposed onto a female, and we had Barbarian, Amazon and Sorceress.
It's safe to assume that D3 will have the Barbarian, a Physical ranged character (bows / throwing) and a Magical ranged character.
I doubt it will have any healing, but I think theres a good possibility of having a Holy character, like a Priest or Monk.
But that's a different thread entirely.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.