Blizzard looking into free-to-play Starcraft
StarCraft 2 lead designer Dustin Browder says the company is looking into the possibility of F2P for the multiplayer, but doesn't know how to monetize the idea.
PC companies big and small are looking at free-to-play as a new way of generating revenue. Blizzard is no exception, and has reportedly been thinking about ways it could use the F2P model for StarCraft 2's multiplayer mode.
PC Games N reports that at an eSports panel, lead designer Dustin Browder said the company is "looking at free-to-play as an option for the multiplayer." Multiplayer remains one of the series' most popular features, especially for its ties to eSports competitions.
The problem, though, is that Blizzard hasn't figured out how to make any money off a free-to-play model, since the mode wasn't conceptualized that way. And more importantly, would a free-to-play Starcraft game even be fun? "We don't know how we would monetize it," Browder said. "While it might be good fun for me to play against someone with only half the units available to them, that's not going to be an enjoyable experience for them."
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Blizzard looking into free-to-play Starcraft.
StarCraft 2 lead designer Dustin Browder says the company is looking into the possibility of F2P for the multiplayer, but doesn't know how to monetize the idea.-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
Yeah, it got shut down last year. They're currently hiring an exec producer to handle free-to-play, so it's definitely in the cards for something.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
They are not.
The battle.net website is down right now, so I can't give you a link, but it directly says so in the HotS FAQ.
-
-
-
Ad supported is the only thing that would work.. as long as there's a normal paid version I guess I don't really care - faster quickmatching :p
-
Ad supported hasn't worked for anyone, though, has it? Two different companies went bankrupt trying to do ads in Quake Live.
-
-
Nah, some third parties. I can't remember their names, but Carmack mentioned it in this years Quakecon keynote.
-
-
-
The time when internet ads were worth anything except in huge volume (we're talking like a thousand for a few dollars) is loooooong over. I don't see how any game could run completely ad supported.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
F2P is the new cancer of gaming. Adding grind/unlock/rpg mechanics to everything, even where they dont make sense. If its not entirely pay to win then sacrificing visual readability through "cosmetic" unlocks.
What happened to competitive games where everyone starts on even ground, and the way players feel "special" or "unique" is not through their character level/items/hats/skins, but through their deep gameplay experiences and their fast reactions, quick thinking and their playstyle.
Yes its great that more people are getting into gaming and the casual audience has huge monetary potential, but as a result, the average gaming IQ has dropped significantly, and most companies are now catering to the lowest common denominator. The problem is not that some companies are doing this, but almost every company is alienating their core/loyal audience for a more volatile one that couldn't give two shits and only care what most of the people on facebook/twitter are playing so they can proceed to +1 it from their ipads in a hipster "cool geek" cafe.-
-
-
ohhhh k, you can take a seat over there.
-
dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.
post hoc ergo propter hoc.
False Dichotomy via falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus.
You picked a couple of atypical outliers/exceptions to refute the general case by cherry picking. Furthermore, I am arguing against the F2P component/layer itself, not the underlying game which are separable parts. It is incorrect to indicate that only one component is tied to the success of the game. It is the gameplay that primarily makes a game. You cant sell a game on pure F2P, there needs to be some gameplay, regardless of how good it is.
Also, if you know what you were talking about, a lot of tribes (T1/T2) vets have skipped this one because they were immediately turned off by the F2P aspect. As a starsiege tribes player myself who participated in the beta, I was intially put off, but after giving it a second chance, I was so impressed that they more or less kept the tribes feel/movement, that for the first time I dropped cash (an ample amount also) on an F2P game, not because I wanted to unlock shit, but because I wanted to reward HiRez on doing such a good job. I still would of prefered a full/upfront game with no unlocking/levelling/grinding/RPG cos that shit doesnt belong in a competitive skill based game, BUT...
For a game like Tribes with a high skill ceiling, It needs to be F2P to maintain a constantly incoming stream of new players (read: mostly COD/BF cannon fodder that leaves after a while discouraged) so that the servers stay populated.
Tribes (and probably mech warrior) are more or less outliers, but a lot of F2P muddies the purity of the game, and even though they are relatively successful, its not necessarily because of the F2P.
This invalidates your post. Dont be so sure of yourself.
-
-
Nope, I am not political.
My reply states specifically that there are exceptions to general rules/trends and that black/white attitudes are incorrect.
So we agree. good.
I am only saying that it is fallacious to state that a few cases invalidates the general case, and to tie one component to overall success (its not the F2P that makes the game, and conversely, its not only the F2P that breaks it), and that its not a black and white thing. And finally that what I'm arguing is about gameplay purity (particularly in a competitve/skill-based context), not monetary success.
I am also giving a true example of myself enjoying and supporting Tribes:Ascend, an F2P game, which I still regularly play. But just because I do, it doesn't mean I like the F2P aspect, and it doesnt invalidate my argument. You simpleton.
Gamer IQ really has dropped...-
Wasn't talking about your politics, I was talking about your ideology. You've just clearly hashed out how you feel about f2p, you feel very strongly, and you're not coming here to debate. You're just coming here to hold forum in public and tell folks how you are right.
And as I said in my Shackmessage, it behooves one to talk colder rather than hotter.-
Yes, I immediately felt that I shouldn't of said that, and apologies to you. We are all gamers and in this together, so thanks for the message.
However, just because I was rude it does not make my previous point incorrect. And with all respect, just because you are a mod, it does not make you correct either.
I never said there should be no F2P; it has its upsides: see my Tribes example. Its the next step of monetization. Nothing can stop this. But at the very least if more people are aware and vocal about some of some of its downsides, then the faster developers will be able to react and find a good balance.
Tribes for example, needs F2P to have enough populated servers, and I'm glad it does.
I'm not throwing any babies out. All I'm saying is "hey, go and smell that bathwater, Did you realise it was that dirty?"-
-
My viewpoint has so far been completely orthogonal to what has been responded.
I'm saying:
"Some of the side effects of F2P are starting to get really annoying!"
and you and others are saying:
"Well F2P games do well (here are some examples), and I get to try them out for free, so you are both wrong and bigoted!"
A falsely detected attack on your opinions, and a miserable counter argument.
Just because I apologized for being rude it does not make me incorrect. You know my intent, and are deliberately misinterpreting it. I showed you some respect. You should do the same. -
"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
I have just learned this lesson the hard way.
Its impossible to say anything mildly complex on this site (or maybe the internet, or maybe to people in general) because you run the risk of being put into a "fanboy" or "hater" category.
More accurately:
"Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
Fuck it. You win. I'm off.-
lesson learned. never post anything with nuance here
-
-
Appeal to emotion.
You are ticking all the logical fallacy boxes.
Oops i did it again-
[deleted]
-
F2P is the new cancer of gaming.
Opinion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
change post hoc to cum hoc
-
-
First of all I never said I hate F2P. It works in some games in some ways (but it still leaves a smell). I said it was cancerous because it leaves negative effects, spreads, and affects the host.
Basically, it tends to turn most games it touches into a massive time sink for grinding, and reduces the focus to who has the best loot/money/xp/time. While this works great in some games/genres, it has a noticeably cheapening effect on a lot of others. It also dilutes the quality of players in multiplayer, as there is no barrier to entry, so you get alt accounts, griefers, people who dont contribute, etc. These aren't simply my opinion, they are facts, and I have a lot of experience with F2P games which I otherwise love, but see firsthand the effects of F2P on the community.
Just because the dirty bathwater has a baby in it, it doesn't mean that I will drink it.
I am astonished at how good you guys are at connecting invisible dots.If theres one thing that gets me aggravated, its unsound logic backed with an air of confidence. There is a difference between opinion and fact. I respect everyone's opinion and right to enjoy whatever they want.
Having said that, I apologize to yourself, geedeck, and anyone else I might have personally offended, my intent was not to hurt anyone, but just to let off some steam about something thats been nagging me for a long time.
-
-
-
how so
-
-
-
f2p killed that new Tribes game. the amount of random fools it attracts doesn't make up for alienating everyone else. the game is worse when people can't switch to the necessary class because they haven't bought it or when people actively try to stack teams and prolong matches because that gives more XP.
charging for items just don't work for competitive games like Starcraft / Quake. what would be best is limiting the time that a freeloader can play for without paying. they just need to find some way to enforce 1 account per user.
-
-
F2P means I get to try a bunch of new games and realize that I don't like any of them. It's awesome. I don't buy games any more. I just play the F2P ones until I get bored and then move on to the next. For some games that's a couple hours. Others, a week or two. Occasionally I'll throw a few bucks at one that I like, but that's getting more and more rare.
-
You didnt even read the entire post. I didnt say F2P is shit, all I'm saying is it often has a negative gameplay/experience effect from the monetization "smells" it produces.
-
-
-
-
Your post was a reply to mine. If yours had nothing to do with its parent (my) post, then you should of posted a reply to the main article. When you click reply, the semantic is that you are replying to the post you clicked on.
I am seriously starting to doubt the intelligence of F2P fans, Luckily for you, correlation does not imply causation.
-
-
-
-
I don't think you should lump all free-to-play games together like that. Certainly some f2p games implement the free to play aspects poorly and it affects the experience negatively. But it doesn't mean the entire model is broken or cancerous. If people do not like the model, the game will not be successful and developers will not emulate that model.
-
Yeah your right. Although I would replace "some" with "most". :)
-
-
-
So basically you follow the pattern of someone who mostly pirates all their games, not contributing to the health of the industry very much.
-
-
F2p gave us LoL, a game I sometimes even forget is f2p.
-
hey everyone let's all white knight for F2P!
-
-
[deleted]
-
this act of depravity brought to you by carls junior
-
That takes getting viruses from pop-up ads to a whole new level.
-
-
You know, I'd be okay with this as long as they allowed you to just buy SC2 outright for $60 and ignore whatever F2P grind mechanic they put in.
I hate F2P gameplay. -
Game companies evaluate all options for future development, news at 11
-
This is such a non-story yet it still gets a bunch of people going
-
F2P is still pretty polarizing. I've played a couple F2P games and I'm not sold on it. I know game companies have to make money to keep making games, but there is something about F2P games that just feels off.
-
-
-
why not instead of F2P, go "pretty damn cheap to play" instead? charge a quarter, or fifty cents, or some small amount, per game. you could buy token packages, maybe if you buy more at once you get some extra plays.
worked ok for the local arcade when i was a kid.-
[deleted]
-
the arcades didnt die out because the business model was no good, they died out because home consoles could meet or exceed the arcade experience. doesnt mean "pay per game" wouldnt work just fine in a different context.
-
Lol, I can't believe you actually think the reason arcades are not the go to place for kids is because of quarters.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
is that sort of how C&C4 worked?
-
-
-
How to monetize it?? Easy. Skins. Vanity items. People eat that up. Why do you think CEs go for hundreds more on eBay?
