Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

Discussion in 'Diablo 3 General Discussion' started by Tannen, Dec 3, 2008.

  1. Tannen

    Tannen IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    Note: This isn't related to D3 per se, but it deals with b.net 2, which most D3 players at one point or another will interact with. I could not find an appropriate forum to post this in, so thought this was the best match. If this is not appropriate, move/delete please!

    Source

    From the above, it seems likely that something, in addition to ads will be coming to battle.net 2.0.
    Now I know that this is all speculation (read: unofficial), but since the above quotes are really all we have to go in, it does seem reasonable to assume some things will cost $$. Is this purely Activision's doing?

    Battle.net was popular for a long time now, and they could maintain it just fine. Now, after a merger/buyout, we hear that in order to keep maintaining it, they must make money on it, somehow. Sure, you can say "but look, D3 and SC2 will bring in WAY more players, so it will cost MORE to keep b.net running at the same quality." That is true - however if it brings in WAY more players, that means they have WAY more profit. Thus, if selling 10 copies of Diablo 1 was enough to have b.net serve 5 people, selling 10 million copies of D3 would be enough to server 5 million people (actually, it is in their favour, because of economies of scale, but you get the point).

    Personally, it is their service, they can do what they want with it. As long as their games don't require it to function properly (and so far, we've seen no indication that SC2 or D3 will require b.net), that's fine. However, at the same time, it really SUCKS. I don't like it. I don't want to pay to switch realms, just so I could group with a few friends. I don't want to pay to "mule" since, in all honesty, that should be a basic game feature (at least for a game like D3). I hope it doesn't come to that. It certainly may not come to that...but if something, in addition to ads, is coming, WHAT can it be? Ideas?
     
  2. sbn

    sbn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    803
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    Funny, just saw this at Ars and the first thing I think of is to come here and post this...you beat me to it Tannen -:thumbup:

    I for one am 110% absolutely NOT surprised at all regarding the advertising, in fact I expected this. Battle.net right now already has a lower stream of ad based revenue, Blizzard has just never really capitalized on it. Most often you would see ads for Blizzards own products, with the occasional gaming related ad.

    I would have to guess that the basic 2.0 service will be free to play if they are going for ad supported service. I could forgive to some degree having to pay a minimal fee for certain services such as account name change, etc. But I certainly would not accept P2p, nor do I think that with the current financial crisis it would be wise to try and implement it.
     
  3. korialstraz

    korialstraz IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    5,901
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    In WoW you pay to have chars transfered from server to another right? I could see they charge you to move 1 char from 1 realm to the other (if at all possible) but I doubt they will charge you for creating an account and a new char on a different realm. In other words restrict you to 1 realm and playing on others would cost money.

    About the muling... I doubt it will cost money as well. Blizzard isn't that stupid.


     
  4. konfeta

    konfeta IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    5,336
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    Modern games are more expensive to develop, IIRC, so no, more revenue from game sales themselves won't magically pay for Battle.net 2.0.

    Look at it this way: you will essentially be getting a new, stabler, and more secure multiplayer service than before. For free. Simply by the virtue of being an upgraded version of B.net and having an expanded list of core features you are already getting a noticable improvement over the old.

    Now, on top of that, there will be monetized features that aren't required for the game (which makes me think that muling and the like won't be monetized, besides, shared stash people!). Naturally, acceptance of this concept will be made or broken depending on which features of battle.net Blizzard chooses to monetize.

    As long as the features aren't D3/gameplay specific, I am good, personally.
     
  5. Kalara

    Kalara IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    Tannen, you mentioned that they should be able to "keep b.net running at the same quality" without tacking on extra charges just by the virtue of large amounts of box sales. No matter how great the game creation is for DIII I don't want to play a game plagued by the same troubles as D2. I don't want a game who's economy is run by duped runes/items and farming bots. I am willing to put in a little cash now and then for them to have the manpower to better police the gaming experience and who knows maybe they will even be able to little bits of content outside of expansion packs as well.
     
  6. Tannen

    Tannen IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    It is not magic. It is money from increased sales, pretty straightforward.
    Any extra game development costs are one-time costs. The game keeps on selling, they keep on making money. Basically, if it sells a lot more than D2, the dev. costs could be way higher and they'd be very quickly recovered. Simply put, if the costs are 10x of D2 costs, they DON'T need to sell 10x as many games to recover the costs. Their profit ratio may not be as high, but their actual profit would be higher (assuming D3 crushes D2 in sales).

    New? so what?
    stabler - really, how?
    more secure - how?

    New features = awesome...wait, what are they?
    They can be "new features" and suck or they can be "new features" and rock.

    The way I approach this is like so: I am paying for D3, not b.net. B.net is something they decided to offer as incentive. They made it good, it works for them, not me. If it didn't work for ActiBlizz, they'd get rid of it. They know B.net is a huge incentive for gamers, thus they want to keep it. I agree with that. They didn't make b.net out of charity - they made it to add value to their games. It worked. I liked it, millions of others liked it.

    I don't want to get into policing, economy, and all that, because that is way too personal, and will depend on what each individual WANTS (or expects) their D3 experience to be like. How to fix the economy, whether to "police" or not, etc. etc. are all beyond this. Nobody has made claims on how this will be done (if it will be at all?), but claims HAVE been made about ads, at the least, AND other ways of monetizing b.net. So far, I see one side, but not the other.

    And I agree: what features (if any) end up being monetized will make or break this. If features deemed "essential" are monetized (ex: switching realms), that's one thing, "bonus" features (ex: add a special glow to your name in b.net chat for 3.99!) being monetized is another...
     
  7. Kalara

    Kalara IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    You can't have two separate discussions because the revenu from charging for features on B.net allows for the implementation of things like better prevention of hacks and dupes. Without the one it could be financially unfeasible to do the other.

    I know I am in the minority in this but I would even go for a small pfp (say $8 for 3 months) if it meant a more stable economy based upon valid loot. But that aside I think they could avoid that with other charges they are surely looking at. A glowie name certainly isn't "essential" to gameplay but I don't think paying a little fee to transfer servers is either. You don't want to pay you are of course free to re-roll a toon on the new server.
     
  8. phool

    phool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    Better preventation of hacks and dupes is something you can expect to be designed into the initial package. Creating a system that makes duping impossible in the first place is not a great stretch and, with their wealth off relevent experience from D2 and Wow, we can already see ways preventative measure and workarounds being built into D3 from the very beginning. No active and ongoing force of programmers of GMs needs to be needed. Your insistence on linking the income and expenditure in such an immediate fashion has no obvious rational basis anyway.

    Often monetizing functionality seems to be less about giving bonus functionality to payers as it is about denying basic functionality to non-payers. We'll see what Blizz has to offer in this area.
     
  9. DemolitionSquid

    DemolitionSquid IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    I have no problem with advertisements in the channels. Even this forum has ad bars. As long as I'm not in the middle of raping king leoric and get distracted by a completely out of place pepsi ad in-game, who cares? It's not like you're obligated to click on the ads.
     
  10. visom

    visom IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    Agree with DemolitionSquid

    The ads are no problem to me as long as they don't appear ingame and you don't have deckard cain saying "ah...there you are stranger, come stay awhile and listen, and while you're at it enjoy the refreshing taste of lipton green tea"
     
  11. Echod16

    Echod16 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    I envision product placement..

    *Xaqthar the Siege Breaker has been killed*
    *Xaqthar drops a unique colossus sword, a rare axe, a unique ring, and a 2011 Ford F-150 Hybrid replica!*
     
  12. phool

    phool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    Bnet already has non-intrusive ads, albeit for in theme Blizzard stuff, so no big deal there obviously.
     
  13. sbn

    sbn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    803
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    How true, in fact a lot of games now put advertisements from the login screen to the game browser. So it is not really news that Blizzards is going to have ads. The news is really just that they have contracted out the ad management. One aspect I do kind of think is big news is why it took Blizzard so long to figure this out. They could have very easily patched a game like D2 to have a more efficient game browser that would have taken advantage of waste real estate for ad placement. Hmmm, maybe even have taken some of the added revenue and re-invested into more and better patches for Bnet and D2?



     
  14. KillaMike

    KillaMike Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,961
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    we all knew somewhere within us that there would be ads, the thing that concerns me is that it still be easy to navigate through b.net and get to game you want to, and there wont be any pop-ups :crazyeyes:
     
  15. Knight_Wolf

    Knight_Wolf IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    I see no problems at all, ads inside B.net2 channel is really very OK to me and makes a lot of sense ... i don't know what is there to whine about if they use the top/side/bottom banners for ads while the player chats or searches for the next game to enter ... i see no problems at all here ... actually it never even crossed my mind they would be stupid enough to put ads inside Diablo3 or SC2 ... that will never happen ... and they clearly stated that ... even when someone noted they can use the advertisements doodads in SC2 space-tile for ads of actual real-life products .. they said NO !!!
    As for charging for extra features ... well ... they know better ... and the WOW example is a great example on that .. fact is .. IT WORKS FINE ... charging for side services ( like moving characters between realms, changing account names, ... etc etc ) will never impact the gaming experiance for those who don't care about such things ( like me and many others ) .. but Blizzard know well enough ( from experience with WOW ) that many others WILL PAY WILLINGLY AND HAPPILY for those features .. so no problems here either !!!

    All of this will make Bnet2 a much more streamlined and organized experience ( with more security, bans for trouble causing idiots, info about other players, .... and countless other unrevealed features we will find when we get SC2 )


    Seriously guys .. do you think updating Bnet2 is cost-free ... hell no ... it is much more added cost above the cost of developing the games .. the servers of Bnet2 will still cost money even if people stop buying any new copies ( of course less money than WOW since actual games are no hosted on the servers itself ) ... so how will they pay for maintenance and all the costs involved with developing the new code and features in B.net2 and the salaries of those who maintain it ( which are completely separate from developing costs for their games which are covered up by games sales ) .... really ... people who oppose any sort of in-channel Ads. or payments meant only for extra features have to look more realistically at the subject.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2008
  16. stillman

    stillman IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,658
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    I think they should just overcharge for the box, then make everything else free. Free bnet2, no ads necessary, change realms all you want, etc. We're all going to buy the box no matter what, right?
     
  17. Knight_Wolf

    Knight_Wolf IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    The question is why not have ads in the channel and payment for misc features that have no significant impact on the gaming experience at all.

    Don't forget that you are comparing long term costs ( maintaining B.net2 for an increasing number of players and accounts ) Vs Box costs ( which people will pay only once ) ... beside it is very unjust for those who don't plan on playing online or don't have an internet connection ... i find increasing the box cost much worse than ads and extra payments .. it is totally UNFAIR for SP players or those who don't play much online. :weep:

    B.net2 costs should be limited to B.net2 users only.

    Seriously ... Ads will not poke your eyes if implemented well in the B.net channel ( and i expect no less from Blizz ) .. and moving characters between realms isn't a big deal .. just arrange things with your friends beforehand so that you all play on the same realm ... or just make a new character there.

    Increasing the game box cost for B.net2 is a very big NO NO :nono:


     
  18. Tannen

    Tannen IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    I don't think ads = big news here.
    I think the big news = something else in addition to ads.

    If services like moving your existing character to another realm are not free, that's one thing... But seriously guys, what (besides ads) CAN they implement?
    We've mentioned realm switching, but what else? Anything? That's sorta what I'm after here. How many possibilities do they actually have, that would work? There are many things they could do. Which do you think are actually realistic, feasible, and likely to happen?

    My reason for worry is the fact that Activision seems behind this. They can do whatever they want to their other games, but please leave Blizz alone.

    Anyone who says Activision is NOT affecting blizzard's decisions must live in a fantasy world. They are now one company. They are a public company. Of course their interests, goals, and so on, will be intertwined (note: they may not be involved in development, but rather other aspects, this monetizing b.net thing as an example). It is impossible to escape the influence of your boss, essentially. Hearing this, and knowing Activision's plans, is what's scary.

    Emphasis mine
    Source
     
  19. Kalara

    Kalara IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    Thinking that the set up and initial internal protections of a B.net2 will cover all the places of exploitation that very clever individuals will come up with is a bit naive. There will be a need for continual tweaks and updates to security. I see no problem in Blizzard recouping some of these expenses through non-invasive adds or non-essential extra features.

    However, just what Blizzard deems as "non-essential extra features" will be what I am interested in finding out. That will determine how successful of a balancing act they end up with.
     
  20. Kalara

    Kalara IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Re: battle.net 2.0: say hello to ads, and maybe something worse

    Lets see, good point, what possible things do you all think they could charge for? (good and bad)

    1) Server Swaps
    2) Name changes
    3) Viewing lists of character highlights. Blizzard rankings of xp, deaths, boss kills, and the like. I know EQ2 had an add on for something similar.
    3) Additional character slots. If they limit the number of accounts that can be created with one key.
    4) Larger stash inventory.
    5) Item transfers between servers.
    6) of course adds outside of the game
    .... ok i'm drawing blanks past that.
     

Share This Page