How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

[Special Rolo]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

Easy answer, zero dollars. No matter how great the servers are, or how great the antidupe/cheat components are, you shouldn't have to pay an additional monthly fee to play D3 online. You already pay for internet service, if blizzard wants they can negotiate with my internet service provider to take some money from them monthly. If they want to tier the level of your gaming experience based on costs, then have the cost of the game different at the time of initial purchase (e.g. $40 for single player ONLY versus $70 for the full game). It is an added inconvenience to have to continually pay to play. For this reason (and others) I never have and never will play xbox live, WOW, MMOs in general, etc etc.

 

[chronofus]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

I'll support the game by buying quality expansion releases not cheap tack ons. Pay to play for me isn't going to happen at all. I mix single and multi, so taking away multi by having to pay means to me I won't be playing single player either, so I won't even be buying it at all in that case.

If anyone wants to show off they're a super fan let Blizzard put up a paypal donation button and knock yourselves out.

 

[drakkos]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

willing to pay?

nothing.

i'm tired of being treated like a cash crop, with dev's crankin on the grind attitude.

pay to play is bs, and i'm tired of it.

main reason i'm playing d2 again instead of something more modern.

its actually fun .

 

[DragonChi]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

all i can say is, Name your freakin price..i don't care. id give a lung for that game.

 

[TarnishedHope]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

Uhmm, unless they intend to provide monthly content patches to justify the monthly fee, Diablo 3 has no business being a P2P.

If that's the case, I would be more than willing to fork out a little extra every month. But then, they'll be alienating the SP market. Better to just have them release expansions.

To be honest, I really do not mind paying a monthly fee for anything, providing they can justify the charges. Sadly, in my opinion, not even World of Warcraft, the reigning king of MMO, sufficiently justify the hefty monthly fee. Having a generally terrible class balance & lacking active content updates, I found myself finishing contents much earlier than Blizzard releases them and getting screwed left and right as devs. fumble with class designs.

When they finally decide to release something worthwhile, they slap a $39.99 pricetag onto the "content patch" and call it an expansion.

Whoopie. :coffee:

 

[tyren]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

The day I pay for p2p is the day I probably will end my life.

 

[Demetrium]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

Demetrium, companies have historically been providing online environments for their games since the around the mid 90s to this date. These environments, of which Diablo is one example, have traditionally been free. And yet, the gaming industry is one of the wealthiest industries in the world. http://www.theesa.com/facts/econdata.asp

It was games like Diablo and Warcraft RTS that made Blizzard, payed the development of WoW and supported initial investment in servers, server warehouses and the rest of the whole infrastructure which WoW depends on. Blizzard was already a giant of the gaming industry before WoW turned up. And yet, not a dime was asked of their players to play online.

Sales reports and yearly revenues of gaming companies are among some of the highest in the area of consumer-based business. The huge quantities of money are astounding and have always make these companies leapfrog the ladder of success every single year. Make no mistake, gaming companies are healthy and are recommended.

Do reconsider your idea that gaming companies need a monthly fee to support the cost of games like Diablo and the infrastructure around them.

The article you reference only concerns growth.

Lets say I own a company that makes and sells beans. There are costs attributed to me getting the beans, cooking them, canning them, employing the people who do this labor, etc. After all of the production costs are taken care of, I make .05 USD for every can of beans that gets sold.

For whatever reason the demand for beans grows exponentially, 300%. The next year I produce and sell 300% more beans. I'm still making .05 USD per can. This is basic economics.

Sure, you could argue that the ratio of support:income isn't 1:1 in either the canned beans or gaming industry. You would probably even be right. I'm just hoping you've established the fact that profit can't always be directly derived from growth the way you might assume it would be.

Anyway, like I said in my original post, Blizzard will probably only have a extra fees in D3 in the following scenarios:

1. The event the game's original sale profits can't cover the expenses to support the game for maybe 10+ years.

2. They plan to continually release updates and extra content through the game, similar to WoW. This will probably be done in the form of expansions, which are separately purchasable, and not through a monthly fee.

3. They decide that even though they don't need the extra monthly money to support the game, that they can get away with it because there's such a high demand for the game. They run some math and decide the money lost attributed to people that don't buy the game because of the fee is overcompensated by the people who do pay the monthly fee. Of course, there's also people like you who will buy the game for single player purposes and never subscribe.

#2 is my best bet.

 

[wedo]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

i'm tired of being treated like a cash crop, with dev's crankin on the grind attitude.

This sentence has changed my stance on me paying to play. There's a reason I left wow and you, Sir, have summed it up better than I ever could.

 

[Krugar]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

The article you reference only concerns growth.

And exactly what do you think Growth is? Why you think it's the one thing being analyzed by ESA?

For whatever reason the demand for beans grows exponentially, 300%. The next year I produce and sell 300% more beans. I'm still making .05 USD per can. This is basic economics.

In fact that would be bad economics
You would want to increase the price of beans due to the increase in demand (assuming an environment devoid of competition). In a competitive environment however, you would preferably want to reduce costs in production so that you could build a selling price margin you could use for your benefit. Economics is all about the relationship between demand and supply. A change in one of this factors that isn't followed by a change in either your production costs or selling price is often a recipe for disaster.

I'm just hoping you've established the fact that profit can't always be directly derived from growth the way you might assume it would be.

It's in fact quite irrelevant where growth comes from (in this context). The word 'Growth' in economics is the companies grail. It's the top indicator of the business success. An amalgamation of several factors that ultimately indicate if the business decisions (that include not charging players monthly fees) are good decisions. That article clearly shows they have been. Again, why do you think that's the indicator chosen by ESA on that article? Profits are secondary. Ask any manager... hmm, ask any good manager.

In fact you aren't even equating:

1. loss of business due to players who choose not to pay angry at the unexpected (and never seen before!) decision, or drop out after just a few months.

2. Or the fact that Blizzard will be diluting their investment returns by creating too many games charging monthly fees, since many players won't be able to keep up with paying for more than one or two games at a time...

3. Or the fact Diablo is a casual game when compared to MMOs and lacking a persistent world. As such will have a much harder time maintaining a consistent playerbase with constant dropouts and comebacks.

4. Or that in order to justify a monthly fee, Blizzard will have to provide new content in a regular basis. This decision would alienate single-players. It would contradict Blizzard's previous words in that Diablo 3 would provide an unique single-player experience, and would result in a drop in sales... anyone (including me) who wouldn't buy a game that after all would be built for multiplay enjoyment only.

 

[Demetrium]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

In fact you aren't even equating:

1. loss of business due to players who choose not to pay angry at the unexpected (and never seen before!) decision, or drop out after just a few months.

2. Or the fact that Blizzard will be diluting their investment returns by creating too many games charging monthly fees, since many players won't be able to keep up with paying for more than one or two games at a time...

3. Or the fact Diablo is a casual game when compared to MMOs and lacking a persistent world. As such will have a much harder time maintaining a consistent playerbase with constant dropouts and comebacks.

4. Or that in order to justify a monthly fee, Blizzard will have to provide new content in a regular basis. This decision would alienate single-players. It would contradict Blizzard's previous words in that Diablo 3 would provide an unique single-player experience, and would result in a drop in sales... anyone (including me) who wouldn't buy a game that after all would be built for multiplay enjoyment only.

Did you even bother to read the post you quoted?

1. I covered all of this in my last post.

2. This is a good point, but it's something sure they're taking into consideration. Considering it another thing to add into the math I said they would run in my post (my #3).

3. This is where I think your "single player only" philosophy keeps you entirely out of touch. D2 still maintains a large, consistent player base even after being released over eight years ago.

4. If there is a monthly fee to play multiplayer, what the hell is stopping you from just buying D3 and playing it by yourself like you did with D2? There is content only available in D2's online play, you know.

 

[CBK]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

Did you even bother to read the post you quoted?

1. I covered all of this in my last post.

2. This is a good point, but it's something sure they're taking into consideration. Considering it another thing to add into the math I said they would run in my post (my #3).

3. This is where I think your "single player only" philosophy keeps you entirely out of touch. D2 still maintains a large, consistent player base even after being released over eight years ago.

4. If there is a monthly fee to play multiplayer, what the hell is stopping you from just buying D3 and playing it by yourself like you did with D2? There is content only available in D2's online play, you know.

1. Could you quote where? I can't seem to find where you said what would the consumers reaction be to paying on a monthly basis for beans they bought but haven't eaten yet.

2. The problem about it is not the math. The problem is that you are transfering profit from one game into another making either game drop on profit, which could mean a handful of consequences.

3. While Diablo 2, if you have noticed, still manages to be played by less than 20% of its total community(being generous), this is not what he meant. He meant the game itself doesn't host a "world" as WoW does with a plentiful things to do, so how would you garantee they would stay?(people get tired of pvp/pvm eventually, myself included.)

4. Here, again, you seem to miss his point. He is trying to say how could it have a single player, uncharged with no new content, and a multiplayer, monthly charged getting new content, if the single player content wouldn't be complete since the multiplayer would be getting more and more new content? Take in mind Diablo 2 Multiplayer-Only-Content wasn't really like the end game PvM in WoW, it was rather really optional and had nothing to do with the lore; it only included beneficial items. Or would you agree on having 20 acts on multiplayer while single player gets only 5?

PS: As always I excuse myself for my terri-bad english. And like I've said before, P2P or not, I'll buy it. However, Diablo is not a series meant for P2P, thats my opinion.

EDIT: Another thing. The biggest lie people are telling themselves is that Diablo 2 didn't make money as a F2P. I would love if blizzard released a profit report of the days of Diablo 2 and nowadays. It would shock a lot of people.

 

[Krugar]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

Did you even bother to read the post you quoted?

Of course I did. What did I say that made you think I didn't?

4. If there is a monthly fee to play multiplayer, what the hell is stopping you from just buying D3 and playing it by yourself like you did with D2? There is content only available in D2's online play, you know.

I'm sorry Demetrium. But what are you talking about?

First and foremost, for your information, that MP exclusive content has been a source of complaints by the single-player community since day 1. You just go and look at the requests for Patch 1.13 to see what are the most requested additions by those playing the game in SP.

Second, I'm not going to buy a game that will soon enough become an inferior product to it's MP counterpart. No, no and NO! I don't care how good the game is. As soon as I started looking at what the MP community is getting and looking back at what I'm left with, I'd lose all interest in it.

Third, all the effort going into producing content for the MP version (and with all the necessary new bugs and their correction) doesn't give much much confidence the SP version will get it's fair share of attention regarding bug fixes and new features. There was nothing Blizzard could tell me that would convince me a patch like 1.10 for instance would ever again be possible. I wouldn't just trust my money on this game.

And there is no debate here. I'm not open for suggestions. This would almost certainly be my decision. And make no mistake, of many other single players.

 

[Demetrium]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

Well, first off: I've said twice now that its my opinion the game won't have a monthly fee, and that the most probable event is that there will be 1 or more expansions. In fact, I think they've pretty much confirmed expansions through commentary about returning D2 classes in D3's future. I was simply listing why it could be a monthly fee game, and what reasoning behind it would be.

CBK, your English is fine. Your 3rd point is a whole other argument that really deserves its own thread. I'd be happy to have the argument (I have had it once before), but let me just say the "worlds" are more similar than you would think. I played WoW from it's debut until December of 08, I can vouch for this.

I'm not missing Krugar's point as much as it just doesn't seem very likely that his ideas on how D3 will launch will come into fruition. Again, my bet is that it will follow suit with how D2 was released. A complete single player game with a multiplayer counterpart. If this is the case, he can do exactly what he did with D2. He can buy the game and its possible expansion, play the single player, and thats it. In the rare event there's a monthly fee with new content added on a regular basis, its up to Blizzard at that point to offer him single player versions of it.

In my first post I said I wondered how much it has cost Blizzard to support D2 over the last 8 or so years. Maybe I implied that I thought they lost a huge percentage of their original profit. This wasn't my intent. While I'm sure it has cost them something, I find it unlikely they would regret supporting it for so long. I'm just curious, is all.

Krugar, I mean no offense to you, but I really think you represent a relatively small percentage of D3's probable buyers. The majority of people will be buying the game and playing it with their friends online. It's just what gaming has become these days. I wouldn't expect (and I don't think you do) them to cater to you. Based on how they release the game you'll either decide to buy it or not, and I think Blizzard would be able to come to terms with that.

 

[Krugar]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

I'm not missing Krugar's point as much as it just doesn't seem very likely that his ideas on how D3 will launch will come into fruition.

Hmm... I have no ideas on ho D3 will launch. How could I?

Krugar, I mean no offense to you, but I really think you represent a relatively small percentage of D3's probable buyers. The majority of people will be buying the game and playing it with their friends online. It's just what gaming has become these days. I wouldn't expect (and I don't think you do) them to cater to you. Based on how they release the game you'll either decide to buy it or not, and I think Blizzard would be able to come to terms with that.

No offense taken. Really.
However, you would be surprised how wrong you are about being a small minority.

The visibility of the online community is what drives many players to lean towards that idea. However, Diablo sales by 2006 were a little over 18 million units and yet, BNet peaks never reached over 4 million players (and this for Warcraft and D2 added together).

Related also is the idea many players seem to forget that without a strong and motivating single-player experience, a much larger percentage of MP dropouts are never going to be followed by a comeback. People quitting the MP game will have no offline resource that will invariably help them regain the interest in the MP experience. This is very obvious in WoW where, from my observation only mind you, most of the players who eventually quit, never came back. In contrast, Diabo always experienced a lot of comebacks throughout the years.

EDIT: And just to add another point, there's a lot of other more important reasons for players to really want games to not become MP only. I can today (and I do often) grab a game I played in the 80s and still experiment the thrill of it all on some emulator. I can even play the 90s games with friends over the Internet using the game own LAN features. I still play Doom online often, for instance. Historically, these games will still exist many years later when you get older and more prone to nostalgia attacks. But what can you do with a game like WoW or Everquest when one day the servers curtain finally closes? Is this really what you will want when you get my age? Half a shelf of usable games because when your time was on, you'd rather defend "single players are the minority"?

I may sound dreamy here. And I'll have to concede. However, on every opportunity I have, it's the SP side I'm supportive of. Always!

 

[Demetrium]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

Hmm... I have no ideas on ho D3 will launch. How could I?

The visibility of the online community is what drives many players to lean towards that idea. However, Diablo sales by 2006 were a little over 18 million units and yet, BNet peaks never reached over 4 million players (and this for Warcraft and D2 added together).

Related also is the idea many players seem to forget that without a strong and motivating single-player experience, a much larger percentage of MP dropouts are never going to be followed by a comeback. People quitting the MP game will have no offline resource that will invariably help them regain the interest in the MP experience. This is very obvious in WoW where, from my observation only mind you, most of the players who eventually quit, never came back. In contrast, Diabo always experienced a lot of comebacks throughout the years.

Peaks are just that though. 11 million people play WoW, but I doubt their peaks ever bridge 2-3 million. If someone could find actual figures on that (I'm unsure if Blizzard makes these public), that would be great.

I can honestly say I've played D2/LOD through once, as the sorceress in single player. I've never returned back to single player at all. I have reinstalled D2 and played it for months at a time online at least 5 times though. I intend to do it once again when 1.13 comes out. I also quit WoW for a few months and then came back for another 2 years. Its my experience that, at least 20% of the people I played with returned back to the game after stopping.

I think you're right when you say a fun single player experience translates to someone's interest in the multiplayer. I think this is the case for a lot of people. Honestly, when I get D3, I'm not sure if I'll start with single player or multiplayer. As I've become older I've enjoyed single player games less and less. While I've purchased many, I think the last single player games I've played through and finished over the past several years FF12 and Bioshock. I know for myself, and the handful of people who I play D2 with though, we never ever play single player anymore.

Edit in response to your addition:
I can't see D3 ever being a purely multiplayer game. Also, there are emulation servers. I have played EQ on a 3rd party server before.

 

[Krugar]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

Darn. Sorry for having edited my post so close to your reply. I didn't change anything. Just added the content after "EDIT". It was something that I felt later had to be said. Sorry for my bad manners still.

I know for myself, and the handful of people who I play D2 with though, we never ever play single player anymore.

Yup. Same here. Only the other way around, down to the fact most of the people I know only play SP. And that is simply because we both enjoy the game differently and thus prefer to hang around the ones who think likewise.

On the issues of peaks. There's actually data on Diablo for that. I'll look that up again for you sometime tommorow. I'll leave you with the thought that it's not by chance that Diablo 3 was announced as a game to expand on and bring a better SP experience to D2.

 

[CBK]

Re: How much are you willing to pay to play D3?

Well, first off: I've said twice now that its my opinion the game won't have a monthly fee, and that the most probable event is that there will be 1 or more expansions. In fact, I think they've pretty much confirmed expansions through commentary about returning D2 classes in D3's future. I was simply listing why it could be a monthly fee game, and what reasoning behind it would be.

CBK, your English is fine. Your 3rd point is a whole other argument that really deserves its own thread. I'd be happy to have the argument (I have had it once before), but let me just say the "worlds" are more similar than you would think. I played WoW from it's debut until December of 08, I can vouch for this.

I'm not missing Krugar's point as much as it just doesn't seem very likely that his ideas on how D3 will launch will come into fruition. Again, my bet is that it will follow suit with how D2 was released. A complete single player game with a multiplayer counterpart. If this is the case, he can do exactly what he did with D2. He can buy the game and its possible expansion, play the single player, and thats it. In the rare event there's a monthly fee with new content added on a regular basis, its up to Blizzard at that point to offer him single player versions of it.

In my first post I said I wondered how much it has cost Blizzard to support D2 over the last 8 or so years. Maybe I implied that I thought they lost a huge percentage of their original profit. This wasn't my intent. While I'm sure it has cost them something, I find it unlikely they would regret supporting it for so long. I'm just curious, is all.

And what Krugar and I are trying to explain is the reasoning why they most likely, wouldn't make it a P2P. =)

I would dare to disagree. I, myself, also played WoW for more than 3 years, and if you are talking about pre-bc WoW I would disagree enormously on how much the worlds are close to each other. You could start by the genre, the games engine and how servers are managed; however, as you very well put, this would be a topic for another thread.

I had to bold part of the quote because their is something I disagree with you. Picture the position you are putting blizzard into. If they choose to offer single player version of the multiplayer content, they'd be giving new content for free. However, if they choose not to, we go back to what I stated before, you'd be giving an unfinished game to those who would only choose to play single player.

In the end, I agree with you. They will add one or more expansions. However, the reasons why they would make it P2P just seem far from logical, as far as my point of view lets me imagine. I have yet to see an argument that opens my eyes on to what benefits would it bring specificly to the diablo series as it is of right now.