^^^ I don't know that the people wanting free stuff is "sickening"... I just think it makes a person sound like they haven't really thought it through, and they have no concept of what costs are involved.
I'm not looking for "things for free", but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around throwing money at every shmuck with his hand out. Why do you guys keep saying you are paying for the game? It's not part of the game cost, it doesn't even go towards the people who make the game. Microsoft has just set up a toll booth to pay to get access to someone elses work.
Considering the cost of the online is probably going to double or triple the entire cost I paid for the console (which, was a significant investment for me to begin with) I do find it to be a very high cost when I'm shopping for a console and deciding if it's worth buying or not. Also, it makes it worse since I know enough about network archectecture to know that there is no good reason that there needs to be a middleman running servers and charging a toll on them. Heck, we have plenty of examples of this working well in the past that this should be obvious to anyone.
I really don't give a crap if games cost more to make these days unless the product is worth more to me (not that it's going to the people that make the games anyway). There are very few games being put out today that are worth more to me than games were before and thats just how it is.. If they cost more to make than they are worth to me, don't make them because I won't buy them. I'm not a charity so sell me something I want, don't sell me a sob story about your costs.
Edit:
Also, seriously, like downloaded content, I believe this is probably the "way of the future" when it comes to console gaming, so, like I say I think it will be a factor as to whether or not I continue to patronize them. Like download content, it's *around* now, but we still have the choice. If that choice goes away in the future, so, most likely, will I.
Developer gets paid by publisher for the rights to the game (they may give extra incentive bonuses such as 2% royalties for games sold).
Publisher takes all the risk with manufacturing, producing, marketing, etc. This whole "the developers see shit" thing is annoying. Someone makes me a burger at McDonalds. Should they see money from that because they heated up the nasty food and served it to me? No. Same thing applies.
Now, Microsoft might be a "toll booth" for said content. Sure, that's perfectly fine. Let's get the publishers/devs off of Microsofts servers and services and they can run their own games online. Harmonix decides to charge $5 a month to play Rockband online and use their leaderboards. Sweet, now I don't have to pay $10 a month for XBL. Oh, I want to play Lego Star Wars online, and they're charging $4.85 a month to play. Crap, now I want to play guitar hero online, and Activision is charging $7.50 a month to play on their servers. This would also apply to Sony as well.
That, right there, is why the console company handles this with 1 flat fee, on their servers and services. Granted, unless it's an online only game, you can have your buddies come over and play, or vice versa.
I'm surprised to see some people bitching about paying to play online as opposed to having their game locked out and not being able to bring it over to their buddies house to use on your friends console, or trade games with someone else, etc. Pretty sure those are bigger concerns than paying $60 a year for XBL or whatever PSN+ charges.
They can get bent on this download-only and system lock-out stuff, if they want that much control and reduced functionality I'm only going to value their games at $10 and their system at $30.
That's basically how I handle this generations download wares on their respective networks. $10 is pretty much my cap for non-physical media as I just can't justify paying a physical piece of software I can keep for a year or 25 years I can go back to whenever vs something that is around as long as the server hosts/developers see fit.
I think it's outrageous that this is coming. If everything goes digital, when you buy a game, you're not buying the game. You own nothing. All you're doing is leasing some data. It can be taken away from you, lost, corrupted, hacked, whatever and you have zero control over it. That's BS and I'll never participate in that, just like I've never done the whole I-Tunes thing. I buy CDs so I can have the physical CD, case, artwork, etc. so I have something tangible that I own, can take anywhere I want and do anything I want with it, and don't have to worry about losing my whole music collection because a hard drive fails. I understand trying to fight piracy but the rights of the consumer have been thrown out the window by corporations in the name of profit.
Here's another thing; as soon as there was digital downloads with mp3s it encouraged people to dump their physical copies, so now among consumers there's the overwhelming perception that CDs have no value--furthermore why should you even pay for this no-value item as an mp3 when you can get it for free with file-sharing?
We can see the prices charged for music and pc downloads and it's obvious they're living in a fantasy world thinking people will line up to pay top dollar for a non-physical product.
You do live in a fun alternate reality world. There is no hostage situation there. You do it, or you don't. It almost appeared to be one with the PSN deal, but that came out in court as being acceptable too.
You either like it, or lump it. In the case of a 720 or a PS4 well you read it, deny it, system shuts down, and you return it and the games.
Just because the courts said it was acceptable doesn't mean there is no hostage situation. There is, it's just a legal one. Maybe the day I bought my PS3, I could have declined *that* EULA and returned my stuff, but yesterday when prompted for one, what if I didn't like that one? Can I return all my PS3 stuff I bought over the years that won't work if I don't agree? Cause I would gladly do it.
Arch:
I would only consider actual agreements, where both parties actually understand the terms and agree to them. Personally I don't think there can be any way to enter agreements automagically.
It is somewhat one-sided in that they can modify the EULA at any time and you just have to live with them breaking the original contract without being able to pursue recourse. Perhaps a better way would be to make up your own contact and get a Sony or Microsoft representative to sign it before you make your purchase XD
Games run servers for free just fine. I played Diablo and Starcraft for years for free. Skype does voice and video chat services for free. There is no argument for needing to pay $10 a month for these services. Blizzard was able to maintain updates to the game, control of user cheating, a ladder system, a huge game world, online events ETC. It could do it all in the cost of the retail game. Microsoft is just grabbing cash. If you honestly think the only way this can work in a quality manner, you have been sold on the hype and marketing campaign.
Games run servers for free just fine. I played Diablo and Starcraft for years for free. Skype does voice and video chat services for free. There is no argument for needing to pay $10 a month for these services. Blizzard was able to maintain updates to the game, control of user cheating, a ladder system, a huge game world, online events ETC. It could do it all in the cost of the retail game. Microsoft is just grabbing cash. If you honestly think the only way this can work in a quality manner, you have been sold on the hype and marketing campaign.
Nothing is free, Tim, you should know better.
Skype is only free for specific services. LOTs of people pay money to use Skype as an actual VOIP service rather than just a skype-to-skype voice chat service.
Blizzard is making it all up on the back-end with the fact that you can STILL buy Diablo 2 at Target or WalMart, and they suck people into the subscription service of playing WOW. Console publishers can't maintain sales of ANY game 15 years after it was released... there is a huge difference between how these things work on a PC vs consoles, in terms of the potential economics and who is subsidizing what.
I think a lot of you guys must be too young to have remembered paying $30/mo for dial-up Comp-U-Serve in the early 90's so you could play Black Dragon (an online rogue-like), or paying long-distance charges to dial-in to a BBS to play LoRD. Even 15 years ago people paid $20/mo to play Ultima Online (on top of their ISP charges AND the initial cost of the game).
So few games even have servers, Microsoft doesn't I'd bet. I mean, to a point yes they do of course, but most games just run with a xbox assigned to be a server then all others connect to the xbox. Hence why in a ton of games you can't join your friends game. It's not expensive at all because most games don't do it.
Games run servers for free just fine. I played Diablo and Starcraft for years for free. Skype does voice and video chat services for free. There is no argument for needing to pay $10 a month for these services. Blizzard was able to maintain updates to the game, control of user cheating, a ladder system, a huge game world, online events ETC. It could do it all in the cost of the retail game. Microsoft is just grabbing cash. If you honestly think the only way this can work in a quality manner, you have been sold on the hype and marketing campaign.
Nothing is free, Tim, you should know better.
Skype is only free for specific services. LOTs of people pay money to use Skype as an actual VOIP service rather than just a skype-to-skype voice chat service.
Blizzard is making it all up on the back-end with the fact that you can STILL buy Diablo 2 at Target or WalMart, and they suck people into the subscription service of playing WOW. Console publishers can't maintain sales of ANY game 15 years after it was released... there is a huge difference between how these things work on a PC vs consoles, in terms of the potential economics and who is subsidizing what.
I think a lot of you guys must be too young to have remembered paying $30/mo for dial-up Comp-U-Serve in the early 90's so you could play Black Dragon (an online rogue-like), or paying long-distance charges to dial-in to a BBS to play LoRD. Even 15 years ago people paid $20/mo to play Ultima Online (on top of their ISP charges AND the initial cost of the game).
Online gaming in this generation is CHEAP.
I know they can't do it free of cost to themselves, but they can do it within the cost of the game. Yes Diablo 2 is still selling in stores, but they are also still maintaining the servers, and the price of the game has dropped dramatically. It isn't using revenue from WOWs payed model. Diablo 3 will be out next month and will also allow free online play. Diablo 1 isn't even sold anymore, and last I checked it's servers are still up. Same with Warcraft 2 Battl.net Edition. Console games only need to maintain severs for 5 years, until the next console comes out. You can't play Phantasy Star Online unless you are on a private server. I would imagine it would be the same after every console dies. I also think games on 360 and PS3 will be dropped from online play in a few years.
The type of services Skype or many other online voice and video chat uses that are required for gaming online are the free ones, and many are supported by small ads. Which I don't mind, because you are already getting advertisements in Xbox Live and PSN.
What are these magical free servers you're talking about Tim and who is maintaining them?
Skype (the company) does not get free usage of anything, they pay for it. They make money by having other people pay them to defray that cost for themselves and the other freeloaders that use the "free" version of Skype.
It would be hard to say without looking at Activision's balance sheet HOW they are paying for their old server maintenance (whether they have sufficient on-going sales of their old titles, or if it's being covered by WOW) The fact is they make the VAST majority of their money from WoW subscriptions, so anything they can do to get you hooked on their products is a push towards more WoW subscribers, which is where they actually make their profits.
Also, static ad revenue (which is what pays for you using "free" stuff online) is going to be a declining business model, probably sooner than later, since I personally don't know anybody that has ever clicked through a static ad and ever bought a product or service as a result. There was a time when lots of people did, but people are getting savvier, and also just learning to ignore them entirely. Eventually, they'll have to do something new, or just start charging for services.
None of this is free. There are always on-going costs.
Profit from year 1 does not translate into server maintenance in year 5, since those profits get banked every year and is money off the table, so to speak.
There is no need for any centralized servers. Having all your traffic go through one server is a bad idea anyway. They have been doing this stuff right already for ages now, they can't pretend they suddenly don't know how to do it without setting up some giant toll booth.
one dude acts as host, the other dudes act as clients. Throw a list of hosts up somewhere and tell people where it is. The end.
If you are actually paying an MMO like WOW or Black Dragon (the one I played was called ICE or something where they actually work for their subscription fee, then of course I have no problem paying a subscription fee. The xbox games will work exactly the same way whether the toll booth is there or not, and they most likely do work the exact same way for the other systems that don't have the toll booth.
I didnt mean the servers themselves were free. I meant they are free for us users. Im pretty sure WOW profits have nothing to do with battle.net games as Diablo came out in 1996 before wow was even a thought and blizzard was doing awesomr back then. They went on to make several more battlenet free to play games and still support the old ones all on the revenue of retail sales. Many other companies make free to play online games and never make any revenue based games and they do fine. I really dont see free ad based software going anywhere. It has just started a new growth spurt. You can now even grt ad supported hardware. If that was the case a brilliant and huge company like google would be majorly restructuring right now. You dont need to ride on the backs of payed users for free voip. It has been around for a long time. Stuff like chat roooms and instant messengers have no problems doing it.
I didnt mean the servers themselves were free. I meant they are free for us users. Im pretty sure WOW profits have nothing to do with battle.net games as Diablo came out in 1996 before wow was even a thought and blizzard was doing awesomr back then. They went on to make several more battlenet free to play games and still support the old ones all on the revenue of retail sales. Many other companies make free to play online games and never make any revenue based games and they do fine. I really dont see free ad based software going anywhere. It has just started a new growth spurt. You can now even grt ad supported hardware. If that was the case a brilliant and huge company like google would be majorly restructuring right now. You dont need to ride on the backs of payed users for free voip. It has been around for a long time. Stuff like chat roooms and instant messengers have no problems doing it.
I read something very recently about static ads being on the decline as a revenue model and not being sustainable.
Companies like Google are contstantly adjusting how they make money. They aren't stupid and they have teams of analysts that help them figure out how to squeeze every last penny out of their market. They have seen the changes coming, probably for years.
Battle.net is paid for by the ads you get when you're not in game. Big difference between playing a game online for free, and playing a game online for free that is driven by ads. Also, isn't the latest star craft pay to play through a paid battle.net 2.0 subscription? I haven't kept up with Blizzard because Diablo 3 isn't out yet (soon though, thank god), but I could've sworn the new battle.net wasn't free.
And yes, this thread got derailed like a fat kid at a salad bar.
Battle.net is paid for by the ads you get when you're not in game. Big difference between playing a game online for free, and playing a game online for free that is driven by ads. Also, isn't the latest star craft pay to play through a paid battle.net 2.0 subscription? I haven't kept up with Blizzard because Diablo 3 isn't out yet (soon though, thank god), but I could've sworn the new battle.net wasn't free.
And yes, this thread got derailed like a fat kid at a salad bar.
Thanks for hte clarification, it has been probably 15 years since I've signed into Battle.net so i have absolutely no knowledge of how it is currently run... I just know it can't literally be "free" without getting non-game revenue from SOMEWHERE (sounds like that somewhere is now ads)
Yea, it's probably been a good 6 or so years since I last played Diablo 2 online, but I remember there being ads when you're not in game, unless they changed something *shrugs*.
I think it's way too early to tell what these systems are going to be like dispite the rumors of no used games and the rest of the mess. Will I be a part of it, probably so, but I won't be able to decide between manufacturers before I know the full story of each system.
Battle.net is paid for by the ads you get when you're not in game. Big difference between playing a game online for free, and playing a game online for free that is driven by ads. Also, isn't the latest star craft pay to play through a paid battle.net 2.0 subscription? I haven't kept up with Blizzard because Diablo 3 isn't out yet (soon though, thank god), but I could've sworn the new battle.net wasn't free.
And yes, this thread got derailed like a fat kid at a salad bar.
Thanks for hte clarification, it has been probably 15 years since I've signed into Battle.net so i have absolutely no knowledge of how it is currently run... I just know it can't literally be "free" without getting non-game revenue from SOMEWHERE (sounds like that somewhere is now ads)
StarCraft 2 still works the same way Starcraft 1 did, you buy the game, you can play online. Online play is included in the cost you pay for StarCraft 2.
Edit: Also, as usual, the the actual games are direct connections between the players anyway, BattleNet is just a matchmaker
Battle.net is more than just a gateway, at least for Diablo 2 which stores your saves, has timed events, and special areas that you can't play offline unless you find some mod that adds it in, on top of runewords and other ladder only/battle.net only uniques and items. I was never into Star Craft, so I'm not sure about all that, but battle.net is more than just a match maker, and it's still run by ads.
Battle.net is more than just a gateway, at least for Diablo 2 which stores your saves, has timed events, and special areas that you can't play offline unless you find some mod that adds it in, on top of runewords and other ladder only/battle.net only uniques and items. I was never into Star Craft, so I'm not sure about all that, but battle.net is more than just a match maker, and it's still run by ads.
I've never played any of the diablos and I don't really know how they work at all, but the only ads on battlenet for starcraft are upcomming blizzard stuff, they don't run revenue generating ads on there for starcraft at all. The expense of running the battlenet servers I'm sure are pretty small compared to their expenses involved in actually making the game.
Yes, it does more than matchmaking, the saves are saved locally I think for starcraft, but it's got the usual IRC chat room and keeps track of rankings and such.
Battle.net is paid for by the ads you get when you're not in game. Big difference between playing a game online for free, and playing a game online for free that is driven by ads. Also, isn't the latest star craft pay to play through a paid battle.net 2.0 subscription? I haven't kept up with Blizzard because Diablo 3 isn't out yet (soon though, thank god), but I could've sworn the new battle.net wasn't free.
And yes, this thread got derailed like a fat kid at a salad bar.
Thanks for hte clarification, it has been probably 15 years since I've signed into Battle.net so i have absolutely no knowledge of how it is currently run... I just know it can't literally be "free" without getting non-game revenue from SOMEWHERE (sounds like that somewhere is now ads)
Yes of course, I mean free to play, not free to operate. But the ads are usually for Blizzard stuff, and Xbox live also has ads, combined with you having to pay a subscription. Battle.net has always been free. Payed games are not through Battl.et example: WOW. WOW is payed because it is an MMORPG. Just like on Xbox Live you have to pay a monthly subscription for MMORPGS plus your regular monthly fee.. making things really ridiculous.
The thing that annoys me with XBL is that you have to pay for a subscription to use things like the facebook app and Netflix. Unsure about Youtube, but I wouldn't be surprised.
What MMO's besides Final Fantasy XI do you need to pay extra for on XBL?
Comments
Considering the cost of the online is probably going to double or triple the entire cost I paid for the console (which, was a significant investment for me to begin with) I do find it to be a very high cost when I'm shopping for a console and deciding if it's worth buying or not. Also, it makes it worse since I know enough about network archectecture to know that there is no good reason that there needs to be a middleman running servers and charging a toll on them. Heck, we have plenty of examples of this working well in the past that this should be obvious to anyone.
I really don't give a crap if games cost more to make these days unless the product is worth more to me (not that it's going to the people that make the games anyway). There are very few games being put out today that are worth more to me than games were before and thats just how it is.. If they cost more to make than they are worth to me, don't make them because I won't buy them. I'm not a charity so sell me something I want, don't sell me a sob story about your costs.
Edit:
Also, seriously, like downloaded content, I believe this is probably the "way of the future" when it comes to console gaming, so, like I say I think it will be a factor as to whether or not I continue to patronize them. Like download content, it's *around* now, but we still have the choice. If that choice goes away in the future, so, most likely, will I.
Publisher takes all the risk with manufacturing, producing, marketing, etc. This whole "the developers see shit" thing is annoying. Someone makes me a burger at McDonalds. Should they see money from that because they heated up the nasty food and served it to me? No. Same thing applies.
Now, Microsoft might be a "toll booth" for said content. Sure, that's perfectly fine. Let's get the publishers/devs off of Microsofts servers and services and they can run their own games online. Harmonix decides to charge $5 a month to play Rockband online and use their leaderboards. Sweet, now I don't have to pay $10 a month for XBL. Oh, I want to play Lego Star Wars online, and they're charging $4.85 a month to play. Crap, now I want to play guitar hero online, and Activision is charging $7.50 a month to play on their servers. This would also apply to Sony as well.
That, right there, is why the console company handles this with 1 flat fee, on their servers and services. Granted, unless it's an online only game, you can have your buddies come over and play, or vice versa.
I'm surprised to see some people bitching about paying to play online as opposed to having their game locked out and not being able to bring it over to their buddies house to use on your friends console, or trade games with someone else, etc. Pretty sure those are bigger concerns than paying $60 a year for XBL or whatever PSN+ charges.
Originally posted by: RyuHayabusa
I think it's outrageous that this is coming. If everything goes digital, when you buy a game, you're not buying the game. You own nothing. All you're doing is leasing some data. It can be taken away from you, lost, corrupted, hacked, whatever and you have zero control over it. That's BS and I'll never participate in that, just like I've never done the whole I-Tunes thing. I buy CDs so I can have the physical CD, case, artwork, etc. so I have something tangible that I own, can take anywhere I want and do anything I want with it, and don't have to worry about losing my whole music collection because a hard drive fails. I understand trying to fight piracy but the rights of the consumer have been thrown out the window by corporations in the name of profit.
Here's another thing; as soon as there was digital downloads with mp3s it encouraged people to dump their physical copies, so now among consumers there's the overwhelming perception that CDs have no value--furthermore why should you even pay for this no-value item as an mp3 when you can get it for free with file-sharing?
We can see the prices charged for music and pc downloads and it's obvious they're living in a fantasy world thinking people will line up to pay top dollar for a non-physical product.
Originally posted by: cradelit
Originally posted by: Tanooki
You do live in a fun alternate reality world. There is no hostage situation there. You do it, or you don't. It almost appeared to be one with the PSN deal, but that came out in court as being acceptable too.
You either like it, or lump it. In the case of a 720 or a PS4 well you read it, deny it, system shuts down, and you return it and the games.
Just because the courts said it was acceptable doesn't mean there is no hostage situation. There is, it's just a legal one. Maybe the day I bought my PS3, I could have declined *that* EULA and returned my stuff, but yesterday when prompted for one, what if I didn't like that one? Can I return all my PS3 stuff I bought over the years that won't work if I don't agree? Cause I would gladly do it.
Arch:
I would only consider actual agreements, where both parties actually understand the terms and agree to them. Personally I don't think there can be any way to enter agreements automagically.
It is somewhat one-sided in that they can modify the EULA at any time and you just have to live with them breaking the original contract without being able to pursue recourse. Perhaps a better way would be to make up your own contact and get a Sony or Microsoft representative to sign it before you make your purchase XD
Originally posted by: JBOGames
Games run servers for free just fine. I played Diablo and Starcraft for years for free. Skype does voice and video chat services for free. There is no argument for needing to pay $10 a month for these services. Blizzard was able to maintain updates to the game, control of user cheating, a ladder system, a huge game world, online events ETC. It could do it all in the cost of the retail game. Microsoft is just grabbing cash. If you honestly think the only way this can work in a quality manner, you have been sold on the hype and marketing campaign.
Nothing is free, Tim, you should know better.
Skype is only free for specific services. LOTs of people pay money to use Skype as an actual VOIP service rather than just a skype-to-skype voice chat service.
Blizzard is making it all up on the back-end with the fact that you can STILL buy Diablo 2 at Target or WalMart, and they suck people into the subscription service of playing WOW. Console publishers can't maintain sales of ANY game 15 years after it was released... there is a huge difference between how these things work on a PC vs consoles, in terms of the potential economics and who is subsidizing what.
I think a lot of you guys must be too young to have remembered paying $30/mo for dial-up Comp-U-Serve in the early 90's so you could play Black Dragon (an online rogue-like), or paying long-distance charges to dial-in to a BBS to play LoRD. Even 15 years ago people paid $20/mo to play Ultima Online (on top of their ISP charges AND the initial cost of the game).
Online gaming in this generation is CHEAP.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: JBOGames
Games run servers for free just fine. I played Diablo and Starcraft for years for free. Skype does voice and video chat services for free. There is no argument for needing to pay $10 a month for these services. Blizzard was able to maintain updates to the game, control of user cheating, a ladder system, a huge game world, online events ETC. It could do it all in the cost of the retail game. Microsoft is just grabbing cash. If you honestly think the only way this can work in a quality manner, you have been sold on the hype and marketing campaign.
Nothing is free, Tim, you should know better.
Skype is only free for specific services. LOTs of people pay money to use Skype as an actual VOIP service rather than just a skype-to-skype voice chat service.
Blizzard is making it all up on the back-end with the fact that you can STILL buy Diablo 2 at Target or WalMart, and they suck people into the subscription service of playing WOW. Console publishers can't maintain sales of ANY game 15 years after it was released... there is a huge difference between how these things work on a PC vs consoles, in terms of the potential economics and who is subsidizing what.
I think a lot of you guys must be too young to have remembered paying $30/mo for dial-up Comp-U-Serve in the early 90's so you could play Black Dragon (an online rogue-like), or paying long-distance charges to dial-in to a BBS to play LoRD. Even 15 years ago people paid $20/mo to play Ultima Online (on top of their ISP charges AND the initial cost of the game).
Online gaming in this generation is CHEAP.
I know they can't do it free of cost to themselves, but they can do it within the cost of the game. Yes Diablo 2 is still selling in stores, but they are also still maintaining the servers, and the price of the game has dropped dramatically. It isn't using revenue from WOWs payed model. Diablo 3 will be out next month and will also allow free online play. Diablo 1 isn't even sold anymore, and last I checked it's servers are still up. Same with Warcraft 2 Battl.net Edition. Console games only need to maintain severs for 5 years, until the next console comes out. You can't play Phantasy Star Online unless you are on a private server. I would imagine it would be the same after every console dies. I also think games on 360 and PS3 will be dropped from online play in a few years.
The type of services Skype or many other online voice and video chat uses that are required for gaming online are the free ones, and many are supported by small ads. Which I don't mind, because you are already getting advertisements in Xbox Live and PSN.
Skype (the company) does not get free usage of anything, they pay for it. They make money by having other people pay them to defray that cost for themselves and the other freeloaders that use the "free" version of Skype.
It would be hard to say without looking at Activision's balance sheet HOW they are paying for their old server maintenance (whether they have sufficient on-going sales of their old titles, or if it's being covered by WOW) The fact is they make the VAST majority of their money from WoW subscriptions, so anything they can do to get you hooked on their products is a push towards more WoW subscribers, which is where they actually make their profits.
Also, static ad revenue (which is what pays for you using "free" stuff online) is going to be a declining business model, probably sooner than later, since I personally don't know anybody that has ever clicked through a static ad and ever bought a product or service as a result. There was a time when lots of people did, but people are getting savvier, and also just learning to ignore them entirely. Eventually, they'll have to do something new, or just start charging for services.
None of this is free. There are always on-going costs.
Profit from year 1 does not translate into server maintenance in year 5, since those profits get banked every year and is money off the table, so to speak.
one dude acts as host, the other dudes act as clients. Throw a list of hosts up somewhere and tell people where it is. The end.
If you are actually paying an MMO like WOW or Black Dragon (the one I played was called ICE or something where they actually work for their subscription fee, then of course I have no problem paying a subscription fee. The xbox games will work exactly the same way whether the toll booth is there or not, and they most likely do work the exact same way for the other systems that don't have the toll booth.
Originally posted by: JBOGames
I didnt mean the servers themselves were free. I meant they are free for us users. Im pretty sure WOW profits have nothing to do with battle.net games as Diablo came out in 1996 before wow was even a thought and blizzard was doing awesomr back then. They went on to make several more battlenet free to play games and still support the old ones all on the revenue of retail sales. Many other companies make free to play online games and never make any revenue based games and they do fine. I really dont see free ad based software going anywhere. It has just started a new growth spurt. You can now even grt ad supported hardware. If that was the case a brilliant and huge company like google would be majorly restructuring right now. You dont need to ride on the backs of payed users for free voip. It has been around for a long time. Stuff like chat roooms and instant messengers have no problems doing it.
I read something very recently about static ads being on the decline as a revenue model and not being sustainable.
Companies like Google are contstantly adjusting how they make money. They aren't stupid and they have teams of analysts that help them figure out how to squeeze every last penny out of their market. They have seen the changes coming, probably for years.
And yes, this thread got derailed like a fat kid at a salad bar.
Originally posted by: dra600n
Battle.net is paid for by the ads you get when you're not in game. Big difference between playing a game online for free, and playing a game online for free that is driven by ads. Also, isn't the latest star craft pay to play through a paid battle.net 2.0 subscription? I haven't kept up with Blizzard because Diablo 3 isn't out yet (soon though, thank god), but I could've sworn the new battle.net wasn't free.
And yes, this thread got derailed like a fat kid at a salad bar.
Thanks for hte clarification, it has been probably 15 years since I've signed into Battle.net so i have absolutely no knowledge of how it is currently run... I just know it can't literally be "free" without getting non-game revenue from SOMEWHERE (sounds like that somewhere is now ads)
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: dra600n
Battle.net is paid for by the ads you get when you're not in game. Big difference between playing a game online for free, and playing a game online for free that is driven by ads. Also, isn't the latest star craft pay to play through a paid battle.net 2.0 subscription? I haven't kept up with Blizzard because Diablo 3 isn't out yet (soon though, thank god), but I could've sworn the new battle.net wasn't free.
And yes, this thread got derailed like a fat kid at a salad bar.
Thanks for hte clarification, it has been probably 15 years since I've signed into Battle.net so i have absolutely no knowledge of how it is currently run... I just know it can't literally be "free" without getting non-game revenue from SOMEWHERE (sounds like that somewhere is now ads)
StarCraft 2 still works the same way Starcraft 1 did, you buy the game, you can play online. Online play is included in the cost you pay for StarCraft 2.
Edit: Also, as usual, the the actual games are direct connections between the players anyway, BattleNet is just a matchmaker
Originally posted by: dra600n
Battle.net is more than just a gateway, at least for Diablo 2 which stores your saves, has timed events, and special areas that you can't play offline unless you find some mod that adds it in, on top of runewords and other ladder only/battle.net only uniques and items. I was never into Star Craft, so I'm not sure about all that, but battle.net is more than just a match maker, and it's still run by ads.
I've never played any of the diablos and I don't really know how they work at all, but the only ads on battlenet for starcraft are upcomming blizzard stuff, they don't run revenue generating ads on there for starcraft at all. The expense of running the battlenet servers I'm sure are pretty small compared to their expenses involved in actually making the game.
Yes, it does more than matchmaking, the saves are saved locally I think for starcraft, but it's got the usual IRC chat room and keeps track of rankings and such.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: dra600n
Battle.net is paid for by the ads you get when you're not in game. Big difference between playing a game online for free, and playing a game online for free that is driven by ads. Also, isn't the latest star craft pay to play through a paid battle.net 2.0 subscription? I haven't kept up with Blizzard because Diablo 3 isn't out yet (soon though, thank god), but I could've sworn the new battle.net wasn't free.
And yes, this thread got derailed like a fat kid at a salad bar.
Thanks for hte clarification, it has been probably 15 years since I've signed into Battle.net so i have absolutely no knowledge of how it is currently run... I just know it can't literally be "free" without getting non-game revenue from SOMEWHERE (sounds like that somewhere is now ads)
Yes of course, I mean free to play, not free to operate. But the ads are usually for Blizzard stuff, and Xbox live also has ads, combined with you having to pay a subscription. Battle.net has always been free. Payed games are not through Battl.et example: WOW. WOW is payed because it is an MMORPG. Just like on Xbox Live you have to pay a monthly subscription for MMORPGS plus your regular monthly fee.. making things really ridiculous.
What MMO's besides Final Fantasy XI do you need to pay extra for on XBL?