monthly fees

[made of hate]

im surprised to not see this thread newhere however it prolly is this is my 1st time and so i make this post.... is there going to be monthly fees for d3? if so will you play?? if there is already a thread covering this topic simply link it...

[AniMe]

Definately! 15 euro or so a month is pocket change even though I'm an unemployed art student ._.

[Psyco]

no info on that yiet so far but if they are putting a fee i guess il just play singleplayer instead..i didint give up on WoW to start getting stuck paying something that i will feel forced to play at least one week a month because im paying for it

and it would be pretty crappy from their part since you get stuck with a series that never made player pay per month and now does instead of making an mmorpg out of it and continue with the actual series

also its not that huge like other mmorpg and play pretty fast also...its like asking to pay for warcraft3 or SC2..i would say no right away it just doesnt make sense and with the money most people i know are having a hard time with well it just wouldnt make me want to spend my money on it at all if i couldnt play with my friend and the pay-to-play alone is enought to turn me off now...so far all pay-to-play game have all been ruined by people whinning for tons of stuff that doesnt make sense and then they listen to them...EQ was corruption and balance and bad expantion and OP item,daoc was people that wanted the PVE thing that EQ had and they basicly destroyed the pvp in there because of that,WoW was just full of either retard or 10 year old that wanted it easy mode and a paladin that was like a warrior with a heal instead of the best support class ive seen so far and also people being jalouse of other raider and high ranked pvper that actually spent time and effort getting the gear they had to be UNIQUE and more powerfull,now everyone look the same and there is absolutly no point in raiding other then to see the dungeon...and even then they arent worth it since they are now really easy to master and get on farm status,sad cause it was the best MMORPG ever....and they just listened to a bunch of idiot(casual gamer that want the same power as powergamer but with no effort at all,you know the kind that shouldnt be allowed to live :P) and then everything went really really bad.

[Phranx]

There hasn't been anything set in stone but the general feeling is that it will be free to play while you can buy small things that don't effect game play. There is also talk about 3rd party adds being in Battle Net 2.0, I believe this last part is confirmed?

[Bladewind]

Bnet 2.0 probably has extra benefits for payers but nothing that should detract from your main game experience.

[KillaMike]

im surprised to not see this thread newhere however it prolly is this is my 1st time and so i make this post.... is there going to be monthly fees for d3? if so will you play?? if there is already a thread covering this topic simply link it...

there are some topics about it, ppp (pay per play) i read that it is most unlikely, nvm i would hate to see it to be ppp, then i d just stick on d2 and play my @@@@ of there with no bots at all :P

[Hdefte]

Well as far as I understand there will be no monthly fees to play d3. It is not an MMO!
Its a hack and slash, with singleplayer, multiplayer etc...So as far as i understand it will be free to play, but i can't be 100% sure ofc.

B.net was free before so i can't see any reason why it souldnt be just because it gets upgraded a bit, its not like having big big servers running like in MMOs

[starmelt]

I've heard some talk about bnet 2.0 beeing a payservice. And personally I wouldnt mind.
It would probably mean better support, and more content added after launch.
More items, more quests, more fun. It also would be alot easier to keep cheaters at bay.
And it would make sense that you pay for only one account, not for every game.
Also; The death of muling!! :D

[KillaMike]

I've heard some talk about bnet 2.0 beeing a payservice. And personally I wouldnt mind.
It would probably mean better support, and more content added after launch.
More items, more quests, more fun. It also would be alot easier to keep cheaters at bay.
And it would make sense that you pay for only one account, not for every game.
Also; The death of muling!! :D

welcome WOW fun, plz mind it is not wow over here, it is diablo :S

[Valmy]

This is NOT a mmorpg, this is not like WOW.

[starmelt]

you dont have to tell me that, i played diablo and diablo 2 since launch.

you two obviously dont want to see any contentchange in D3. Two patches a year and one expansion is clearly enough for you. Or is it just that you dont want to pay for the services?

[KillaMike]

you dont have to tell me that, i played diablo and diablo 2 since launch.

you two obviously dont want to see any contentchange in D3. Two patches a year and one expansion is clearly enough for you. Or is it just that you dont want to pay for the services?

for me it is second thing, if it is gonna be ppp ( what it wont be ) i ll stay on d2, and d3 still gonna have payble features, such as change your chars name, move from Europe to US etc. muling = crap, just need better inventory, which we ve seen been improved on char, we havent seen cheast/bank yet. so if there is gonna be better muling, i might just make soso and be happy with only character in my acc. and paying per play... sounds like spend money to buy it, pay more for playing like a dull, sorry

regards

[Bladewind]

I can see Bnet 2.0 being something like this.

Payers
Can create more accounts per cdkey.
Can make guilds
Name change
Server move

Nonpayers
1 account per cd key (can't make multiple mule accounts anymore, even with the much larger inventory, space WILL run out eventually)
Can only join guilds.
Cannot change names
Cannot shift between servers

etc

[starmelt]

Staying free, like it always have been, is of course ideal. But if we want more frequent patching and updating we have to give Blizzard enough funds to keep a large, dedicated, Diablo-team even after launch and years to come. If they could manage that by advertising alone, it would be great. But probably not.
I mean, how long did it take before runewords and synergies were implented? (It ruined the game in many ways, but still. Burn in hell, charms.)
For D3 to keep me satisfied on a long-term basis, I personally would like to see more updates and patches, and if they demand pay, I'm saying that I wouldnt mind it. And I dont see how this makes it more like WOW. Its just how the games work these days. People want more features, and the companies need funds to make them.

[KillaMike]

I can see Bnet 2.0 being something like this.

Payers
Can create more accounts per cdkey.
Can make guilds
Name change
Server move

Nonpayers
1 account per cd key (can't make multiple mule accounts anymore, even with the much larger inventory, space WILL run out eventually)
Can only join guilds.
Cannot change names
Cannot shift between servers

etc
something like that sounds okay, but i would like to see removed option with guilds :nod:

[Grug]

Guilds are called "Clans" in Diablo.

Anyways, don't fear. I'm pretty sure they'll get their revenue by putting ads in the Bnet lobby.

[touchshriek]

I know this has been discussed at length before, but I feel the need to chime in. There are several issues with a game becomming a pay to play. Sure, a few dollars a month for a good game is worth it, but the standards of judgement rise significantly. When a player is made to pay a continuing subscription, he/she feels compelled to get the most out of that game. This, in turn, is likely to cause that player to purchase and try fewer games of this similar buisness model. Now I know what your thinking... Blizzard has a great track record and so on. That may be... but it is still a much more significant commitment of the gamer to switch pay to play titles. Much of the enjoyment in games of this type is the characters pursuit of ultimate power. Unfortunatly, in most games of this type, ultimate power equates to time spent in game grinding. A game developer must acknowledge different gaming habits of their customers. Sure there are those gaems that cater to specific groups, be it the gamer elite or clueless beginner; but I sense Diablo 3 is designed for a very broad apeal. That said, I still think a game should present game options, challenges, and layers of depth suitable for varried styles of play. I just think a pay to play model is quick to turn away a significant number of players.

Somene above mentioned free play with paid features. I feel this is a bad idea as well as it segregates the game comunity. Sure this sort model works for the doawnloadable browser game and the like because the secondary incomplete option is totally free. the problem with this mopdel occurs when an initial purchase is still made to recieve only half a product. (Lets face it, the majority of us are glass have empty people rather than half full people when it comes to game content) When I decide to purchase a product I usally want that product in its entirety. The gamers quest for ultimate power is quickly hindered when large portions of additional, optional for purchase content divide the haves from the have nots. Now let me clarify, becuase I am very much for the development of expansions and aditional content. It is about how that content is introduced that stems the headache. When you purchase a boxed expansion, you feel as though you own that content. For as long as you like you can play that content. When you subscride to content you are only renting that content. It's playability is finite.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there are very good profiting games out there that do not charge subscription fees, and provide an excellent service and continuing updates. While every game is (or should be) different, and as such difficult to comapre with its contemporaries, one can not ignore them. I'm a huge fan of the Guild Wars series which breaks the mold in how it is neither grind-centric, or pay to play. I don't mean to compare such different games I simply mean to use the example that quality is attainable with different buisness models. This is significant in that there will be players, such as myself, who will prefer and gravitate towards those games which are not subcription based; where we feel we hold ownership in the game and not a lease. As a long time fan and player of the Diablo series, I look forward to its release. I can say with certainty, however, that I would not purchase the game were it subscription based in any form.

[Durin]

Of course it will be pay to play. They know 85-90% of BNet players will play D3 on BNet no matter if it's free or 10-15$ per month, because BNet players do not enjoy single player mode so much ( it's usually pointless for them ). Those players with no wish to pay to play will still buy the game for single play, but they are minority.
Those who now say something like "if it's gonna be pay to play I will go single player" are saying this now, but when game comes out they will change their mind, believe me :] Blizzard officials understand psychology very well, and if they can make a better profit by implementing pay to play feature >> they will.

...and that's very good for the game itself, because bnet support will be better, many upgrades and expansionS can be expected and after all it will make Blizzard develop even better projects in the future.

Remember, only reason why D3 is going to be a great game is thanks to WoW success and the money it earned for Blizzard. You can't make such game with 10-50 millions of dollars, it's needed a lot, lot more.

[Kaysaar]

I honestly don't much care either way - as I don't plan on playing the game online at all. I've had my fun on battle.net, and don't much plan on returning.

[Keighvin]

Until I hear differently from Blizzard, I'm going with Pardo, who said that they were looking at microtransactions, not subscriptions. And the MTs would not be for in game anything.

[CarpeNoctem]

as far as online gaming go's D2 was the funnest most entertaining game going.. i played it 6 yrs straight and it still holds it own.. somewhat

D2 being a measly $70 odd at launch gave me so much.. 6 yrs of complete entertainment.. and some good fond memories.. loved it !

if blizzard can give me something more the what D2 did ill 100% accept the fact that ill have to pay for it.. nothing comes for free, nothing worth our time anyway.. sure most online games a free, but how many do we remember being even half of what diablo 2 was? have their been any other games we have sat and played for 12 hours a hit ? not for me anyway, most games these days ill play for 2-3 hours a sitting at max..

im happy to pay the 20$ a month or whatever it may be.. whats the cost of renting a movie.. $5 bucks a night or whatever they charge us?.. there is a hella lot more value in what blizzard will supply us and im sure that they will deliver what we as the diablo community have grown to expect from blizzard..

thats just my 2 cents

[Valmy]

you dont have to tell me that, i played diablo and diablo 2 since launch.

you two obviously dont want to see any contentchange in D3. Two patches a year and one expansion is clearly enough for you. Or is it just that you dont want to pay for the services?


Hi, sorry, perhaps I didn't sound clear enough.

When I said "this is not a mmorpg, this is not WOW", I mean I'm sure Diablo III will not need a monthly payment. Granted. Because this is not a mmorpg.


I am not telling you if I would pay or not if it were different. Of course I would pay for it.

I'm just telling you Diablo III is not a mmorpg, and then it will not cost money.

I think Blizzard will make something to take money, like perhaps optional settings, like changes in realm, character name, big stash, or utilities like those. But never a monthly fee, because this is not a mmorpg ;)

[Turnip]

MMORPG dont really need monthly fees, theres a reason blizzard got so rich after WoW was released.

[Valmy]

MMORPG dont really need monthly fees

I'm not telling it needs. Just read it again, please ;)

[Bladewind]

Just pay for it if you wanna support Blizz and the special addons only for close Bnetter. ;)

Otherwise you can stick to vanilia SP and open bnet.


I will gladly pay if they make my gameplay experiences alot better.

[starmelt]

Hi, sorry, perhaps I didn't sound clear enough.

When I said "this is not a mmorpg, this is not WOW", I mean I'm sure Diablo III will not need a monthly payment. Granted. Because this is not a mmorpg.


I am not telling you if I would pay or not if it were different. Of course I would pay for it.

I'm just telling you Diablo III is not a mmorpg, and then it will not cost money.

I think Blizzard will make something to take money, like perhaps optional settings, like changes in realm, character name, big stash, or utilities like those. But never a monthly fee, because this is not a mmorpg ;)

And I apologize for beeing crass.
I agree that it shouldnt cost money, but I somehow think they will make b.net 2.0 pay-per-play. Or they might divide the payers from the non-payers.
And it not beeing an MMO, doesnt mean they cant take money for it. They can do whatever they want as long as they profit from it :)

[Hdefte]

I have to agree with Valmy people really got to get this into their head: It is not a mmo.

Just because its a roleplaying game, it seems like alot of people automaticly thinks: WoW!!!

I've seen somewhere that blizz is likely NOT to charge anything for b.net how ever there may be some features that they had to charge for...as mentioned earlier in this thread it could be having more accounts, better support etc.

But SC2 is going to run on b.net to...So if its going to cost, then I really can't imagine that it would cost for 2 games...Then you would have an account, kind of like steam, where you have your games linked to. Because if people have to pay for maybe 3 blizzard games (WoW, SC2, D3) would be insane.

So im like 99% sure that you can play D3 with no problems at all without paying anything else than buying the game. :)

[KillaMike]

new OT: when every one gonna go to diablo 3, they all gonna dump they d2 items, and i am gonna be more then just happy to collect it all, when they all get bored of d3, i ll give back d2 items for d3 items :O


edit: i am so so so so terrible :D

[Valmy]

And I apologize for beeing crass.
I agree that it shouldnt cost money, but I somehow think they will make b.net 2.0 pay-per-play. Or they might divide the payers from the non-payers.
And it not beeing an MMO, doesnt mean they cant take money for it. They can do whatever they want as long as they profit from it :)

Yep, totally agree.

I hope they don't separate the users, this is not a good idea in my opinion. I hope just giving them some features is ok, or more secutiry in his accounts that prevent them from steal, and so on.

We will see ^^

[CarpeNoctem]

new OT: when every one gonna go to diablo 3, they all gonna dump they d2 items, and i am gonna be more then just happy to collect it all, when they all get bored of d3, i ll give back d2 items for d3 items :O


edit: i am so so so so terrible :D

right.....

[CarpeNoctem]

And I apologize for beeing crass.
I agree that it shouldnt cost money, but I somehow think they will make b.net 2.0 pay-per-play. Or they might divide the payers from the non-payers.
And it not beeing an MMO, doesnt mean they cant take money for it. They can do whatever they want as long as they profit from it :)

how so ? what makes you think this?.. have any from blizzard lead this to be even 2% true? seems like a whole lot of rumor to me

[Bladewind]

Why are people so opposed to paying ?

I always presume the diablo club players are usually 20s and up (employed by now) ;)

[noticks]

I'm pretty sure Blizzard has stated that they intend D3 to be free to play using Bnet 2.0 online. Sorry I don't have a reference, I'm just pretty sure that has been stated by Blizz.

That said, and without talking about value for content, why would people continually post encouraging Blizzard to change their mind and have us pay for something they have stated they intend to be free?

I used to play online, but got sick of the rampant cheating so I play mostly single player now, but the Bnet 2.0 upgrade will apparently cool the cheating pretty significantly - at least for a while. I'd like to give the online game a chance again with D3, but I for one would stick to single play instead of paying monthly fees - regardless of how low they might be.

And yes - I'm employed and could "afford" a monthly fee. I just don't feel like I should be paying one.

[KillaMike]

Why are people so opposed to paying ?

I always presume the diablo club players are usually 20s and up (employed by now) ;)

i am 18 and skinned student and dont have wish to pay for games beside when buying them from shop :O

any way if you wish to pay, go to d2 liget, or what ever, just folo ad bots in games and spend your cash there :P

[Valmy]

Why are people so opposed to paying ?

I always presume the diablo club players are usually 20s and up (employed by now) ;)

It also depends on th country. I have no problems (I work and I'm 31 years old ^_^), but I know some guys from Argentina, Chile, Perú and others sites of South or Centre America and I think they won't pay a monthly fee because it is expensive there.


PS: non intentional racism here, I just saying something true they told me .

[Airoch]

I would hate to see a monthly fee.

[Mad Mantis]

Why are people so opposed to paying ?

Why should I pay? What does it give me that they couldn't give for free or with the addition of some ads in the Battle.net lobby?

There used to be a time where the customer was king and he was worth keeping. Nowadays people have turned that around and think the company is doing them a favor by making a product.

[Funkopotamus]

Why are people so opposed to paying ?

I always presume the diablo club players are usually 20s and up (employed by now) ;)

Personally, I don't value the game enough to pay to play. People always confuse it with not having money but if I was a billionaire I still wouldn't pay to play.

Unless it turned out to be really awesome, but I mean *really* awesome.

And before anyone tries to point out my hypocrisy by talking about how much a night of partying costs, I don't do that either.

[starmelt]

how so ? what makes you think this?.. have any from blizzard lead this to be even 2% true? seems like a whole lot of rumor to me

Its just my belief, based on how theres been a significant increase of games having content unlocked by payment. Of course this is mainly on the consolemarket, and Blizzard has no past of doing that.
Blizzard has not said anyting on the matter afaik. But considering how the market is, and how they allready have proven that a monthly fee gives them a pretty large revenue, I'm not going to completely discard the chances of it beeing some kind of paid features on b.net 2.0.

[ThomasJ]

Diablo has never had a monthly fee before why would they start now ?

[Bladewind]

Well never said it was really P2P.

Just that paying a month give you more features like letting you create 5 accounts per CDkey while a free payer can only have 1 account per cdkey, guild creation, clan tags etc.

[sbn]

Why should I pay? What does it give me that they couldn't give for free or with the addition of some ads in the Battle.net lobby?

There used to be a time where the customer was king and he was worth keeping. Nowadays people have turned that around and think the company is doing them a favor by making a product.

I had to highlight that last sentence, because it is just so sadly true. Nobody should be truly grateful at Blizzard, they should be grateful to us if we purchase their product.

I just find this so mind boggling insane that some would actually care to throw their money away like this. Especially as we are currently in the midst of a horrible recession that will take quite some time to bounce out off. Some of these kids wanting to actually pay will have a whole new tune once daddy gets laid off and cuts their allowance.

[GardensAngel]

I hope so much that there will be a monthly fee option for D3. Because if D3 turns out as good as I hope for, I'd like it to be fully supported and continued developed at the same or better pace we see with WoW, this aint costless - of course they should get money for it.

This isnt FIFA2210 or another Tomb Raider, it's an über high quality game and I want it to flourish..

[Srikandi]

As for those repeating "this isn't an MMO"... irrelevant :O Game companies are experimenting all the time with new revenue models. Microtransactions, in-game advertising and product placement, you name it. It's not an MMO, but they could still charge.

Hellgate tried the "pay for extra features" road, and look what happened to it :/ Dunno if it was the price or the fact that it just wasn't a very good game though.

I can see plusses and minuses. On the plus side: I wouldn't mind paying a subscription if it meant regular content updates. A stream of new stuff keeps things fresh and interesting.

On the minus side: $15/month isn't a lot if it's the only subscription game you play; but I for one won't pay a monthly fee for more than one game, and I'm not the only one. So monthly fee games have a way of creating a "winner-take-all" competition in the marketplace, that force smaller developers and more innovative ideas out. Love it or hate it, that's what WoW has done to the MMO marketplace :/

And if Blizz makes BNet subscription-based, then D3 is competing with WoW, which would seem like a bad business move.

Unless of course they let you have just one Blizzard subscription, and you can play ANY of their games and get regular updates in all of them :O That would be a pretty good deal which I would happily embrace :) I stopped playing WoW years ago, but I have lots of friends that still do, and if I could pop in from time to time on my Diablo account I totally would.

If they do take that route, though, they should still support a single-player local gamer who doesn't want the subscription fee or the new content, but who does need bug patches.

[Agkistrodon]

I know this has been discussed at length before, but I feel the need to chime in. There are several issues with a game becomming a pay to play. Sure, a few dollars a month for a good game is worth it, but the standards of judgement rise significantly. When a player is made to pay a continuing subscription, he/she feels compelled to get the most out of that game. This, in turn, is likely to cause that player to purchase and try fewer games of this similar buisness model. Now I know what your thinking... Blizzard has a great track record and so on. That may be... but it is still a much more significant commitment of the gamer to switch pay to play titles. Much of the enjoyment in games of this type is the characters pursuit of ultimate power. Unfortunatly, in most games of this type, ultimate power equates to time spent in game grinding. A game developer must acknowledge different gaming habits of their customers. Sure there are those gaems that cater to specific groups, be it the gamer elite or clueless beginner; but I sense Diablo 3 is designed for a very broad apeal. That said, I still think a game should present game options, challenges, and layers of depth suitable for varried styles of play. I just think a pay to play model is quick to turn away a significant number of players.

Somene above mentioned free play with paid features. I feel this is a bad idea as well as it segregates the game comunity. Sure this sort model works for the doawnloadable browser game and the like because the secondary incomplete option is totally free. the problem with this mopdel occurs when an initial purchase is still made to recieve only half a product. (Lets face it, the majority of us are glass have empty people rather than half full people when it comes to game content) When I decide to purchase a product I usally want that product in its entirety. The gamers quest for ultimate power is quickly hindered when large portions of additional, optional for purchase content divide the haves from the have nots. Now let me clarify, becuase I am very much for the development of expansions and aditional content. It is about how that content is introduced that stems the headache. When you purchase a boxed expansion, you feel as though you own that content. For as long as you like you can play that content. When you subscride to content you are only renting that content. It's playability is finite.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there are very good profiting games out there that do not charge subscription fees, and provide an excellent service and continuing updates. While every game is (or should be) different, and as such difficult to comapre with its contemporaries, one can not ignore them. I'm a huge fan of the Guild Wars series which breaks the mold in how it is neither grind-centric, or pay to play. I don't mean to compare such different games I simply mean to use the example that quality is attainable with different buisness models. This is significant in that there will be players, such as myself, who will prefer and gravitate towards those games which are not subcription based; where we feel we hold ownership in the game and not a lease. As a long time fan and player of the Diablo series, I look forward to its release. I can say with certainty, however, that I would not purchase the game were it subscription based in any form.

Impressive post. I only wish I could speak with the knowledge and authority that seems to radiate from your writing. I agree fully with everything you said in this post.

On a side note, I would also like to mention how a subscription based game would hurt gamers under the age of 18. Anyone without a credit card will have to beg their parents to pay their "gaming bills." I don't know about you, but when I was a minor I really enjoyed playing Diablo II, and if it had been a ppp setup, I would have never experienced it. My parents would have refused to pay for such a thing.

[Grug]

People should stop worrying. Here's the most likely course of action:

Blizzard releases the full game. All classes, all items, all dungeons, and all monsters you can play with just the Box. For continued revenue, Blizzard puts banner ads on Battle.net. That's fine! If it's just in the lobby and not in the game it won't be intrusive or mood-breaking at all. Just look at the ads for this forum! We can ignore them, and the companies still pay to put them up.

In addition, Blizz allows for some special extras to be bought with real money. Note the word EXTRA. As in, stuff that really feels superlative. However, that shouldn't mean in-game stuff. No auras or pets or anything. Someone on here suggested selling name changes, extra character slots, and clan tags. That's fine! Make meta-purchases only give meta-changes. It's simple. It's profitable, and it's completely elective. After all, only the hardcore players will pay for Clan tags (what are those, anyway? I thought they were some kind of special icon at the end of your name).

Not to mention Starcraft. If Blizz put ads in the starcraft lobbies, they'd make an obscene amount of money because starcraft players are constantly popping in and out of games, so they see twice as many ads as Diablo players would. Extra money for Blizzard, no extra money from us.

[DivineSweety]

i dont know why people keep bringing this upp it has ben stated many times on difrent sites and sources even by lead producer himself its not going to be a fee.

Bnet dident have any fee why should 2.0 have fee ?
its not like they need the money or anything ... i mean wow 8m players ! got to bring in serious amounts of cash ... and yes what about life after wow ... theyr currently working on a new mmo .

[Bladewind]

Free for basic use yes.

But for extra features, not quite confirmed, yet.

[Funkopotamus]

I hope so much that there will be a monthly fee option for D3. Because if D3 turns out as good as I hope for, I'd like it to be fully supported and continued developed at the same or better pace we see with WoW, this aint costless - of course they should get money for it.

This isnt FIFA2210 or another Tomb Raider, it's an über high quality game and I want it to flourish..

What if it ends up being a mediocre game with a monthly fee?

[Grug]

Free for basic use yes.

But for extra features, not quite confirmed, yet.

Again, as long as the extra features are superfluous I'm fine. I don't want free D3 to feel like a demo of Paid D3, as happens with many other games.

[GardensAngel]

What if it ends up being a mediocre game with a monthly fee?

If its only mediocore I wont pay, thats why I said "if". If it feels at least as good as D2 I would love to pay to play. In other words: I would have paid to play for a better supported D2 with way better actions against botters/dupers and more added content.

[Brother Laz]

Don't forget scale effects of online gaming. An online game is only good if a lot of other people are also playing it. Otherwise you'll have a suboptimal experience that will involve a lot of waiting. This is the case for most games with an online component: so few people are online that you won't have any fun.

A monthly fee will cause the total playerbase to shrink, because quite a few people will feel like they have to pay a monthly fee or get stomped. The result is less sales of the boxed game, and fewer people online. Even fewer of those are actually paying a fee. In the end, you'll have a lot less people to play with, but you're paying extra for the privilege.

Hellgate had this problem when the Stonehenge expansion came out. Few people were paying a fee, so Stonehenge was a ghost town; but if you didn't pay a fee, you didn't have access to the best experience/drop area in the game and you had fewer people to play with because the subscribers were in Stonehenge. Both sides lost out.

......

If you absolutely must have an optional monthly fee, you need to take care of two requirements:

- Paying subscribers should not directly compete against free players, or if they can, they should not have an advantage. (This encourages people to have fun in the regular game even if they have no intention of ever paying)
- Paying subscribers and free players should be encouraged to mingle.

Nadeo understood this: the latest Trackmania United is compatible with the free 'demo' Trackmania Nations. This 'demo' is a complete game with one environment instead of seven. The full United game is sort of obscure, which would ordinarily cause scale effects to work against it, but if you can't find a decent United server, you have access to the copious amounts of Nations servers.

On the flip side, people with just Nations won't get destroyed in a race with United people on a Nations server because the performance of the cars is the same. However, United players can download and play with user-made car models, which makes Nations players jealous when they see other people in R8s and Veyrons. So they buy the full game.

[Bladewind]

It has being stated over and over Bnet basic functionality will be free. Paid contents probably affects stuff like getting clan tags, extra account slots per cd key, allow formation of clans / guilds etc etc.

All this will have no averse effect on other players.

[Funkopotamus]

Some people like to talk theorycraft. It's fun.

[sbn]

It has being stated over and over Bnet basic functionality will be free. Paid contents probably affects stuff like getting clan tags, extra account slots per cd key, allow formation of clans / guilds etc etc.

All this will have no averse effect on other players.

And it will be stated over and over again, and over and over again these threads will be made. Now if we could only figure out some way to tie this into stimulating the economy or reversing global warming then these threads would be fun

Don't forget scale effects of online gaming. An online game is only good if a lot of other people are also playing it. Otherwise you'll have a suboptimal experience that will involve a lot of waiting. This is the case for most games with an online component: so few people are online that you won't have any fun.

You really hit on something here. A huge aspect of D2 that simply can not be overlooked is the fact that since it IS free to play many people continue with this game over the years. How many out there, myself included, quit for year or so, come back, quit again, etc.. The thing is that over 8 years later there is still a community, although certainly not as large as 7-8 years back.

What is extremely frustrating is that the people that keep boosting this idea also tend to be (though not claiming all) too young to grasp our current economic situation. Not too mention that this would be one hell of an idiotic move on Blizzard's part in a business sense. In an economy where people are either not spending, or have nothing to spend, you simply do not come out with this type of service. But again, as it has been stated over and over, D3 will be free to play. End of story.

[KillaMike]

i believe this topic been brought back because there is like, nothing to talk about :(

any way, we been told that no p2p is gonna be, and featers like change name, swap realm, gonna be payble, that one is fine with me, i stick with thing i started to do 1st thing, like named my char: "NeglectColect" as my mfing pala.... so i supose idc about that, but there should be something like runescape had.... :thumbsup:

[Zarniwoop]

I would gladly pay 5 dollars to play online. But, none of that "only elite subscriptions" can get the best drops. Everyone pays the same.