Pay to play or free to fail?
- Thread starter Durin
- Start date
SlechtWeerBeer
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
Not having to play-to-play isn't necessarily bad online play, fyi. Prejudice fails :>
Not having to play-to-play isn't necessarily bad online play, fyi. Prejudice fails :>
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
It isn't necessarily, but most probably. If you look at D2 online play = after one year it sucked so hard.
NASE
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
The problem is that such an environment attracts the wrong people.
Look at guild wars. From what I heard, its not bad. The main reason why the online experience isn't what it should be, is because of the many hacks/dupes/exploits that ruin the game.
The problem is that such an environment attracts the wrong people.
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
The word "it's not bad" tells you all. I don't give a shet to play "not bad" games. Hacks/dupes/exploits can be dealt with if you have enough budget to cover it.
Krugar
Banned
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
There's heaps of pay-to-play games that I wouldn't touch with a 10-feet pole and heaps of free games, I would join in if I didn't fear so much the addiction factor. A game that opens itself to the community development, with programmers, artists, designers, moderators, maintainers, etcetera being selected from the community of players is a recipe for continuous success. The game can still be overseen by the original company and it can still call all the shots and have the last word. But a complex and well organized structure that allows for direct input from the community can make a game survive for decades.
Many MUDs operate using this method, as many less advertised MMOs. Some of these are actually pay-to-play despite the community continuous work.
On any case, I think I'd prefer to pay these days. I seem to think the days of free genius, willingness to commit for the sake of it and genuine altruism is rapidly leaving us as the web is maturing into just another place to make money.
There's heaps of pay-to-play games that I wouldn't touch with a 10-feet pole and heaps of free games, I would join in if I didn't fear so much the addiction factor. A game that opens itself to the community development, with programmers, artists, designers, moderators, maintainers, etcetera being selected from the community of players is a recipe for continuous success. The game can still be overseen by the original company and it can still call all the shots and have the last word. But a complex and well organized structure that allows for direct input from the community can make a game survive for decades.
Many MUDs operate using this method, as many less advertised MMOs. Some of these are actually pay-to-play despite the community continuous work.
On any case, I think I'd prefer to pay these days. I seem to think the days of free genius, willingness to commit for the sake of it and genuine altruism is rapidly leaving us as the web is maturing into just another place to make money.
NASE
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
"It's not bad" should not be interpreted as you do. In this case, it merely means that I assume it to be good as I haven't heard anything bad about it, while I haven't played it myself so I can't know.
Yet seen the fact that the people that have told me that it's a great game, are people I thrust, There so no reason to assume that it will be bad.
Thus, I say it's not bad.
"It's not bad" should not be interpreted as you do. In this case, it merely means that I assume it to be good as I haven't heard anything bad about it, while I haven't played it myself so I can't know.
Yet seen the fact that the people that have told me that it's a great game, are people I thrust, There so no reason to assume that it will be bad.
Thus, I say it's not bad.
Krugar
Banned
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
Can you name one pay-to-play game with a massive player-base without hacks or dupes?
blankblank
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
this... is... sparta!!! i mean madness!! this is not an mmorpg to warrant $15, unless we expect periodic updates like WoW. i'm for free to play, but if p2p is needed, then $5 ought to be enough. or maybe then can make it like prepaid play, not everyone has enough time to make full use of the monthly fees they pay, some just play sparingly.
this... is... sparta!!! i mean madness!! this is not an mmorpg to warrant $15, unless we expect periodic updates like WoW. i'm for free to play, but if p2p is needed, then $5 ought to be enough. or maybe then can make it like prepaid play, not everyone has enough time to make full use of the monthly fees they pay, some just play sparingly.
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
While Diablo2 was so awesomely open for manipulations, people were encouraged to hack :}
Of course, but you missed the whole point like someone who fell from the sky. The goal is not to have a game without hacks and dupes ( that's impossible ), but to have a game with strong systems against it. There are many games where hacks and dupes simply do not pay-off. In wow you can try it but it simply doesn't pay-off in the end, unless you play on a private server.Krugar said:
While Diablo2 was so awesomely open for manipulations, people were encouraged to hack :}
GardensAngel
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
I voted 15$, consider some of these views:
A)In the long run, an online game recieving monthly payments will evolve to ->a better game<- than if it recieved none. Translate this to D2, and think of how fantastic a game it could have become over many years, and look at what we have today: "only" a good game.
B)As paying customers the gamers always got the vote whether the game is good enough to survive or not. Consider all the MMO's strugling today to survive or already closed. Consider Hellgate: London, didnt survive neither.
Why? Because the potential players didnt think the game was good enough overall.
Whats the outcome? It forces each game crew to do their very best - the pressure to create a better and better game. This will most likely evolve into, as I'd like to call it: "The best possible version" of the game.
Imo D2 was a great game and it deserved a "best possible version" - and ultimately it would have saved me time from trying out D2-clones and various MMO's.
If pay to play will without no doubt lead to a better game, how can you not want this for D3 if it is just as good as D2?
I voted 15$, consider some of these views:
A)In the long run, an online game recieving monthly payments will evolve to ->a better game<- than if it recieved none. Translate this to D2, and think of how fantastic a game it could have become over many years, and look at what we have today: "only" a good game.
B)As paying customers the gamers always got the vote whether the game is good enough to survive or not. Consider all the MMO's strugling today to survive or already closed. Consider Hellgate: London, didnt survive neither.
Why? Because the potential players didnt think the game was good enough overall.
Whats the outcome? It forces each game crew to do their very best - the pressure to create a better and better game. This will most likely evolve into, as I'd like to call it: "The best possible version" of the game.
Imo D2 was a great game and it deserved a "best possible version" - and ultimately it would have saved me time from trying out D2-clones and various MMO's.
If pay to play will without no doubt lead to a better game, how can you not want this for D3 if it is just as good as D2?
NASE
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
And yes, perhaps diablo II might have been better when it were p2p. Yet perhaps this would be a bad thing too. We now already have lots of noobs in the realms.
Just let diablo be there for the casual players, and keep to RPG addicts where they should, with their mmo's.
We don't need patches every week. We don't need zillions additional content. We don't need holyday events. We just want a casual, cheap game to play.
And p2p isn't part of that experience.
btw, I'm always surprised that nobody considers pre-paid pay per hours as an option. Then atleast the casual players isn't forced to play.
Because some people simply don't want to spend €27 for two months and then only for 10 hours - something that is reality for me sadly. Not all diablo II players are mmo players. A lot of them are simply casual players that enjoy it when they like, not when they have to consume their €27.
And yes, perhaps diablo II might have been better when it were p2p. Yet perhaps this would be a bad thing too. We now already have lots of noobs in the realms.
Just let diablo be there for the casual players, and keep to RPG addicts where they should, with their mmo's.
We don't need patches every week. We don't need zillions additional content. We don't need holyday events. We just want a casual, cheap game to play.
And p2p isn't part of that experience.
btw, I'm always surprised that nobody considers pre-paid pay per hours as an option. Then atleast the casual players isn't forced to play.
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
Look at it from this perspective. There is 50% of D2 players which don't like p2p idea. If other half wants p2p then Blizzard will have much better profit even if first half does not buy the game. But thing is every D2 player will buy D3 even if it's 15$/month because of the single player mode which will be free. Blizzard will lose absolutely nothing by implementing p2p, they can only profit more and thus create quality content.
Look at it from this perspective. There is 50% of D2 players which don't like p2p idea. If other half wants p2p then Blizzard will have much better profit even if first half does not buy the game. But thing is every D2 player will buy D3 even if it's 15$/month because of the single player mode which will be free. Blizzard will lose absolutely nothing by implementing p2p, they can only profit more and thus create quality content.
Wtf? oO D2 was the most played RPG hardcore game, majority of players spend at least 5h/day in it. Many wow players played D2 before wow. After all p2p is good for eliminating noobs ( as you said ) casual players will play single player and thus keep their noobish gameplay for themselves. That's what I think.
Krugar
Banned
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
Meanwhile, WoW is much more hackable than you seem to think. (no links please)
Diablo 3 will be free, but you won't see the exploit paradise you saw before exactly because much has been learned and a lot of experience has been accumulated ever since. Battle.net 2 is not going to be Battle.net 1.
So don't use Diablo 1 and 2 as your argument. There's free servers out there infinitely better prepared to handle exploits than battle.net.
The fact WoW had better systems in places was not because it was pay-to-play. It wasn't either because Blizzard used a big part of its budget making hacking a more difficult task. I'm falling from the sky to bring you news: It was because much has been learned since the old days of Battle.net 1; An 11 year old system.
Meanwhile, WoW is much more hackable than you seem to think. (no links please)
Diablo 3 will be free, but you won't see the exploit paradise you saw before exactly because much has been learned and a lot of experience has been accumulated ever since. Battle.net 2 is not going to be Battle.net 1.
So don't use Diablo 1 and 2 as your argument. There's free servers out there infinitely better prepared to handle exploits than battle.net.
Grug
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
Battle.net is going to have advertising, so Blizzard won't be strapped for cash. In fact, they'd actually make more money if they let people play online for free, since more people would see the ads.
And before you start having a hissy fit, Battle.net advertising does not mean Diablo 3 advertising. It just means that when in the lobby, there will be a banner ad or two. Nothing in-game. It is no cost to us and a big bonus to Blizzard.
Battle.net is going to have advertising, so Blizzard won't be strapped for cash. In fact, they'd actually make more money if they let people play online for free, since more people would see the ads.
And before you start having a hissy fit, Battle.net advertising does not mean Diablo 3 advertising. It just means that when in the lobby, there will be a banner ad or two. Nothing in-game. It is no cost to us and a big bonus to Blizzard.
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
Please inform yourself. You obviously do not understand how these things work. You can't create anti-hack protection and then enjoy, no matter how good that protection is. Company constantly needs to update their protection systems in order to operate successfully trough years, even months, and that's a lot of money. WoW original was not hard to hack but after few patches things changed. Today you can't find anyone using hacks in wotlk with success. You can still hack but it's a waste of time.
NASE
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
So eventhough the absolute income may be the same, they will lose fans resulting in an decrease of their market segment risking decreased income for expansions etc. While at the same time allowing the competition to gain additional funds and possibly contest the supremacy of blizzard.
Why do you think they released a patch close the announcement of diablo III, why do you think they are planning a additional patch for diablo II? Why do you think diablo II is still playable online?
Because they don't want to lose their fan base. And that's exactly something they risk by making diablo III p2p. Heck, this may even result in a competition with wow, possibly breaking that fan base aswell. Again with the risk of losing them.
That not true. If people don't play diablo III, they will probably play something else. And this will happen if diablo III is single player only for certain people. They probably won't continue to play and end up playing for the competitions.
So eventhough the absolute income may be the same, they will lose fans resulting in an decrease of their market segment risking decreased income for expansions etc. While at the same time allowing the competition to gain additional funds and possibly contest the supremacy of blizzard.
Why do you think they released a patch close the announcement of diablo III, why do you think they are planning a additional patch for diablo II? Why do you think diablo II is still playable online?
Because they don't want to lose their fan base. And that's exactly something they risk by making diablo III p2p. Heck, this may even result in a competition with wow, possibly breaking that fan base aswell. Again with the risk of losing them.
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
I vote for not assuming that it's OK to release games that are hack and exploitable. When did this become the norm? I have the utmost faith that Blizzard will combat cheats and such better than they did with D2. P.S., Diablo is a game that you're supposed to be able to play solo, and even offline. Paying to play then is ridiculous. They still have incentive to keep the game cheat free for quite some time - they want people to buy the game, and so they can keep feeding us expansions. I would be surprised if there were only one expansion for D3. Expansions on the horizon = keep the current players happy. No need to bleed 10 bucks a month.
I vote for not assuming that it's OK to release games that are hack and exploitable. When did this become the norm? I have the utmost faith that Blizzard will combat cheats and such better than they did with D2. P.S., Diablo is a game that you're supposed to be able to play solo, and even offline. Paying to play then is ridiculous. They still have incentive to keep the game cheat free for quite some time - they want people to buy the game, and so they can keep feeding us expansions. I would be surprised if there were only one expansion for D3. Expansions on the horizon = keep the current players happy. No need to bleed 10 bucks a month.
Krugar
Banned
Re: Pay to play or free to fail?
I'm a software programmer and consultant for 24 years now, with a resume in the business industry and indie game development. I'm 42 years old and have been programming since I was 16.
This is information for you, and not trying to impress you. I care not what you think I know or not know, or whether you even believe me. If you are willing to have a conversation on the grounds above, I'll be glad to oblige. And maybe learn something new from you and teach you something new. Otherwise, if the best you can come up is an argument about patches -- as if that was news -- which doesn't even address the point I was trying to put across, you are failing to address my argumentation and treating me like I was an idiot.
Good day.
I'm not going to pursue this further because I fear where it is leading.
I'm a software programmer and consultant for 24 years now, with a resume in the business industry and indie game development. I'm 42 years old and have been programming since I was 16.
This is information for you, and not trying to impress you. I care not what you think I know or not know, or whether you even believe me. If you are willing to have a conversation on the grounds above, I'll be glad to oblige. And maybe learn something new from you and teach you something new. Otherwise, if the best you can come up is an argument about patches -- as if that was news -- which doesn't even address the point I was trying to put across, you are failing to address my argumentation and treating me like I was an idiot.
Good day.