|
by Sol Invictus, Level 55
Last updated at October 13, 2008, 2:12 pm
|
Today, Joystiq spoke with Blizzard's Rob Pardo regarding the minor controversy to which he cleared up the issue by saying that there will be absolutely no subscription fees to play Diablo III.Â
So Julian (Jay) Wilson told us that you guys are looking monetize Battle.Net in some way. Is that right?
Wow, that's an evil way of putting it. Julian's turning into a business guy on me. Here's the way I would put it. We're definitely not looking at turning Diablo into a subscription based game. It's clearly not an MMO, so it's not appropriate to do a business model like that. The way we approach all of our games now, is we come up with what we think is a great game, and then we wrap the appropriate business model around it. If that's just a box price, then that's that.
With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra.
Hellgate directly referenced. Flagshipping avoided.Â

11 comments
ThyrsaM Oct 13, 2008 at 4:26 pm
+1 votes
Well that sounds good. I am glad it will be a no pay system.
Omnifas Oct 13, 2008 at 6:23 pm
+1 votes
I bet the lobby will be riddled with ads, and once you launch they send you to a 15 sec. ad :/. Still better than a sub.
Sp3tSnAz Oct 13, 2008 at 9:59 pm
+1 votes
Bahahahahahaha, they paid out Hellgate :p
Awesome!
Good news btw
Awesome!
Good news btw
Webbstre Oct 14, 2008 at 12:15 am
+1 votes
I expect every new game Blizzard puts out that uses Battle.net will have some kind of services that cost money, starting with SC2 and D3. What other reason could they have for "Battle.net 2.0" (or whatever)? As long as they keep it limitted though, I will be fine with it. SC could use some battle.net sponsored tournaments, and Diablo could use bank-type stashes or something so people no longer make mules.
Ecodot Oct 14, 2008 at 8:42 am
+1 votes
that's soooo YES!
Blizzard don't need to take fees when they get all the money they want from WoW-subscribers
Will there be a hub-system as in diablo II?
Blizzard don't need to take fees when they get all the money they want from WoW-subscribers
Will there be a hub-system as in diablo II?
Sol Invictus Oct 14, 2008 at 10:31 am
+1 votes
To my knowledge, they're keeping the Battle.net interface relatively streamlined and minimalistic like they do in Warcraft 3. There might be a few more options, of course, like the ability to initiate trades while in the chat lobby, or an interactive ladder and armory profile system.Â
Beyond that, I don't see them taking the atrocious path of Hellgate: London's subway stations. Â
Beyond that, I don't see them taking the atrocious path of Hellgate: London's subway stations. Â
Acaulescent Oct 16, 2008 at 7:28 pm
+1 votes
I just hope that expansions and updates keep rolling in unlike the previous diablo games....
Daemaro Oct 18, 2008 at 1:05 pm
+1 votes
Thank the heavens for that. Now people can stop worrying about P2P.
quintal Nov 27, 2008 at 7:33 am
+1 votes
what's wrong with hellgate's subway stations?
i find them way better than battlenet!
that HGL game is taking a bashing everywhere and people dont seem to realize all the good things that it did right. Granted it has big shortcomings but is it a motive for ignoring all its good sides?
Like, the 3D subjective view... isn't it way better than the isometric one?
i find them way better than battlenet!
that HGL game is taking a bashing everywhere and people dont seem to realize all the good things that it did right. Granted it has big shortcomings but is it a motive for ignoring all its good sides?
Like, the 3D subjective view... isn't it way better than the isometric one?
Sp3tSnAz Nov 27, 2008 at 7:53 am
+1 votes
It's kind of subjective...
The 3d view isn't necessarily better, as many games can pull off the top down view just fine, it's all based on how well the game does it. The 3d aspect isn't what was good about Hellgate, rather it was just something that was different to Diablo (however not different to a whole heap of other games)
Hellgate had many other things it did wrong though, including unkept promises of certain updates, lack of features, many many bugs as well as a lack of a polished story line. The problem was that while it may have had some good features that were actually useful, they were overshadowed by the many bad features, which made no one really care about them long enough to actually appreciate them.Â
The 3d view isn't necessarily better, as many games can pull off the top down view just fine, it's all based on how well the game does it. The 3d aspect isn't what was good about Hellgate, rather it was just something that was different to Diablo (however not different to a whole heap of other games)
Hellgate had many other things it did wrong though, including unkept promises of certain updates, lack of features, many many bugs as well as a lack of a polished story line. The problem was that while it may have had some good features that were actually useful, they were overshadowed by the many bad features, which made no one really care about them long enough to actually appreciate them.Â
« Previous |
1 |
Next » |
Forging a Passion for Video Games
23 Subscribers
Started August 15, 2008
696 Total Entries
696 Total Entries



Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...