Activision Blizzard monetizes Battle.net

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Molondo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Guys, Battle.net is a large chatroom segmented into smaller chatrooms with programming to link players based on specified criteria. Its bandwidth costs cannot be that high. Packets exchanged between players do not go through Battle.net's servers, once the game has started, the bandwidth costs are entirely on you and other players in the game. And the packets shouldn't be consuming much bandwidth either, KBs worth.

If Bnet becomes Pay2Play, it'd just be another slap in the face by Blizzard to their customers. Remember, the management at Blizzard has changed, when Vivendi merged with Activision and renamed themselves Activision Blizzard.

I don't ever remmeber being slapped in the face by blizzard.

World of Warcraft.

 

[newb111]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Molondo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Guys, Battle.net is a large chatroom segmented into smaller chatrooms with programming to link players based on specified criteria. Its bandwidth costs cannot be that high. Packets exchanged between players do not go through Battle.net's servers, once the game has started, the bandwidth costs are entirely on you and other players in the game. And the packets shouldn't be consuming much bandwidth either, KBs worth.

If Bnet becomes Pay2Play, it'd just be another slap in the face by Blizzard to their customers. Remember, the management at Blizzard has changed, when Vivendi merged with Activision and renamed themselves Activision Blizzard.

I don't ever remmeber being slapped in the face by blizzard.

World of Warcraft.

Clearly the gaming market disagrees with you.

 

[dclapps]

I like how adding advertisements is considered "declining quality". What do you consider Anand's website to be doing, then?

And as far as that World of Warcraft comment goes: it should be the light bulb in your head turning on, helping you realize that Blizzard is a BUSINESS. Why do you operate a business? To make money! It amazes me why people attempt to personify a business or corporation. They owe you nothing; they provide a product and a service, and you chose to play or you chose not to play.

I just don't see how adding advertisements is bad. Blizzard is selling your eyes so they don't have to come to you for that coin. And that's a bad move .. ?

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: newb111

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Molondo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Guys, Battle.net is a large chatroom segmented into smaller chatrooms with programming to link players based on specified criteria. Its bandwidth costs cannot be that high. Packets exchanged between players do not go through Battle.net's servers, once the game has started, the bandwidth costs are entirely on you and other players in the game. And the packets shouldn't be consuming much bandwidth either, KBs worth.

If Bnet becomes Pay2Play, it'd just be another slap in the face by Blizzard to their customers. Remember, the management at Blizzard has changed, when Vivendi merged with Activision and renamed themselves Activision Blizzard.

I don't ever remmeber being slapped in the face by blizzard.

World of Warcraft.

Clearly the gaming market disagrees with you.

Clearly, the majority of consumers are idiots who shop at Walmart and trample temp security workers.

Originally posted by: dclapps
I like how adding advertisements is considered "declining quality". What do you consider Anand's website to be doing, then?

Anandtech doesn't rake in 165 million dollars per month either. Blizzard does, on a single mediocre title.

This is an interesting point. Could the ad servers be blocked in a similar manner to what Adblock does for most web site ads?

 

[Sylvanas]

I don't care about an in game ad banner, if it was a sub fee then thats different.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Beev
Yeah, I agree with newb, you guys are seriously bitching about this? Bnet uses a ton of bandwidth (I assume). I never understood how it was free to begin with, and if they want to put ads in so it stays free then so be it. Not like I actually care about or look at ads anyway.

I really don't think Bnet uses a ton of bandwidth. Its essential a chat room that links players to game rooms, not exactly bandwidth intensive.

Second, Blizzard claims 11 million subscribers to WoW. If every user is paying on a month to month plan, that comes to 165 million per month, more than enough to finance any damn thing Blizzard wants.

Third, baby steps. You convince people to take a small step towards something they dislike, let them become accustomed to it. Then convince them to take another small step. And so on.
Eventually, you'll be watching promotions for Coke, Viagra, GM, Ford, Toyota, etc, at the Bnet load screen, in the waiting room prior to game start, at the game load screen itself, and at the stat screen at the end of the game.

Edit - The ads in prior Blizzard titles were trailers as the game initially started, easily skipped with the Esc key.

sorry, but that revenue from wow isn't profit. they still need to pay to keep wow running, which i'm willing to bet isn't cheap.

this is 100x preferable than pay2play for bnet. if the ads are "just in a text chat room" then why the fuck are you complaining?

 

[ibex333]

Well, I knew this would happen sooner or later. In fact, I'm sure there will come a day when they will introduce a monthly b-net subscription fee. Blizzard is just not what it used to be 10 years ago. And it never will be again. But I'd rather them bombard me with annoying ads in game lobby, then make me pay subscription fees. I can live with that. However, I'll definitely stop playing blizzard's games if they introduce monthly fees on D3 and SC2.

PS: I have a problem with this statement quoted from above: "Jay Wilson was quoted as saying, "We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features. We kind of have to."

According to Jay, monetizing b-net is pretty much required to make new games. But then a question comes to mind... How in the world were they able to make Diablo 1, 2, Starcraft and Warcraft 3? How are other game companies able to make their games without forcing ads onto people? And the "we kind of have to" part? I'm at a loss for words...

 

[Oceandevi]

Ads don't work. I know its the engine of google, but really who actually clicks on these ads?

My point is that I filter the ads out when I use google, and will continue to do so on bnet.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: ibex333
Well, I knew this would happen sooner or later. In fact, I'm sure there will come a day when they will introduce a monthly b-net subscription fee. Blizzard is just not what it used to be 10 years ago. And it never will be again. But I'd rather them bombard me with annoying ads in game lobby, then make me pay subscription fees. I can live with that. However, I'll definitely stop playing blizzard's games if they introduce monthly fees on D3 and SC2.

PS: I have a problem with this statement quoted from above: "Jay Wilson was quoted as saying, "We are looking to monetize Battle.Net so that we get to keep making these games and updating features. We kind of have to."

According to Jay, monetizing b-net is pretty much required to make new games. But then a question comes to mind... How in the world were they able to make Diablo 1, 2, Starcraft and Warcraft 3? How are other game companies able to make their games without forcing ads onto people? And the "we kind of have to" part? I'm at a loss for words...

Being forced to by the uppers? Just a guess..

 

[novasatori]

how about sc2 shipping in 3 boxes as the first slap in the face

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: novasatori
how about sc2 shipping in 3 boxes as the first slap in the face

How can you moan about getting 3x the amount of content for starcraft?! They would have to significantly scale back the campaigns to fit it into 1 box in a reasonable amount of time. If you dont like 3x starcraft II's dont buy them.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: novasatori
how about sc2 shipping in 3 boxes as the first slap in the face

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: pontifex
sorry, but that revenue from wow isn't profit. they still need to pay to keep wow running, which i'm willing to bet isn't cheap.

this is 100x preferable than pay2play for bnet. if the ads are "just in a text chat room" then why the fuck are you complaining?

It doesn't cost anywhere near 165M to run an MMO, even one with as many servers as WoW. Even with the most pessimistic estimates, Blizzard would still pull in more than 150M per month in profit on that game.

I'm complaining because I'm stick and tired of publishers slowly destroying electronic gaming.

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: novasatori
how about sc2 shipping in 3 boxes as the first slap in the face

How can you moan about getting 3x the amount of content for starcraft?! They would have to significantly scale back the campaigns to fit it into 1 box in a reasonable amount of time. If you dont like 3x starcraft II's dont buy them.

The game hasn't been released yet, so that's entirely just speculation. It could still be released with a 10 mission campaign.

 

[coloumb]

Does anyone really pay attention to those ads?

 

[vhx]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Does anyone really pay attention to those ads?

Your eyes are always paying attention to everything. Whether you realize it or not.

Anyways, pretty lame. How much do you want to bet this won't lower the cost of these games? It never does. Not sure why you guys are arguing server costs. Blizzard was able to keep the D1/2, WC 1/2/3 servers up back in the day during its popularity. Battle.net is just a glorified chatroom, ranking, and game matching system. I always thought the hoster made a difference since it gets hosted off their computer, not Blizzards. I like Blizzard, but it's a bad sign to see them moving towards EA.

 

[TehMac]

DAMN THOSE DEVELOPERS FOR TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT!!!

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: udneekgnim
I don't care about seeing ads on battle.net as long as bnet remains free to use and ads are not in-game.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: pontifex
sorry, but that revenue from wow isn't profit. they still need to pay to keep wow running, which i'm willing to bet isn't cheap.

this is 100x preferable than pay2play for bnet. if the ads are "just in a text chat room" then why the fuck are you complaining?

Actually, most of that is profit.

Text

According to Kotaku's report, Blizzard stated during their Analyst Day conference call yesterday that the price has been over $200 million since the game launched in 2004.

That's $200 million for the total cost of upkeep since the game's November, 2004 release (presumably not including the initial cost to develop the game). This includes payroll for the entire staff, hardware support, and -- apparently the biggest infrastructure cost -- customer service.

So over about 4 years, WoW cost Blizzard $200 in upkeep. However, as Blizzard seems to be makings at least $120 million per month, their whole upkeep cost over 4 years is easily made up in two months.

That aside, ads in battlenet don't bother me as long as they stay in the chatroom sections. I don't want ads affecting my actual game experience...

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: udneekgnim
I don't care about seeing ads on battle.net as long as bnet remains free to use and ads are not in-game.

 

[Xylitol]

Originally posted by: vhx

Originally posted by: coloumb
Does anyone really pay attention to those ads?

Your eyes are always paying attention to everything. Whether you realize it or not.

Anyways, pretty lame. How much do you want to bet this won't lower the cost of these games? It never does. Not sure why you guys are arguing server costs. Blizzard was able to keep the D1/2, WC 1/2/3 servers up back in the day during its popularity. Battle.net is just a glorified chatroom, ranking, and game matching system. I always thought the hoster made a difference since it gets hosted off their computer, not Blizzards. I like Blizzard, but it's a bad sign to see them moving towards EA.

in warcraft 3, regular games are hosted by bnet, and there are A LOT of players who play that

 

[Fingolfin269]

How do advertisements lead to less quality???

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: novasatori
how about sc2 shipping in 3 boxes as the first slap in the face

How can you moan about getting 3x the amount of content for starcraft?! They would have to significantly scale back the campaigns to fit it into 1 box in a reasonable amount of time. If you dont like 3x starcraft II's dont buy them.

The game hasn't been released yet, so that's entirely just speculation. It could still be released with a 10 mission campaign.[/quote]

Blizz said each campaign will have around 30 missions, each game will be worthy of standing on its own. Blizzard is the best game developer in the industry, they dont do low quality. 30 missions per campaign = 90 missions over 3 games. Good news for starcraft fans everywhere.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: novasatori
how about sc2 shipping in 3 boxes as the first slap in the face

How can you moan about getting 3x the amount of content for starcraft?! They would have to significantly scale back the campaigns to fit it into 1 box in a reasonable amount of time. If you dont like 3x starcraft II's dont buy them.

The game hasn't been released yet, so that's entirely just speculation. It could still be released with a 10 mission campaign.

Blizz said each campaign will have around 30 missions, each game will be worthy of standing on its own. Blizzard is the best game developer in the industry, they dont do low quality. 30 missions per campaign = 90 missions over 3 games. Good news for starcraft fans everywhere.[/quote]

im gonna have to agree here, Blizz has basicially never failed to deleiver.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: novasatori
how about sc2 shipping in 3 boxes as the first slap in the face

How can you moan about getting 3x the amount of content for starcraft?! They would have to significantly scale back the campaigns to fit it into 1 box in a reasonable amount of time. If you dont like 3x starcraft II's dont buy them.

The game hasn't been released yet, so that's entirely just speculation. It could still be released with a 10 mission campaign.

Blizz said each campaign will have around 30 missions, each game will be worthy of standing on its own. Blizzard is the best game developer in the industry, they dont do low quality. 30 missions per campaign = 90 missions over 3 games. Good news for starcraft fans everywhere.

im gonna have to agree here, Blizz has basicially never failed to deleiver.

There are already threads about this issue...

 

[Smilin]

Bnet has always had ads and I don't see any decline whatsoever in the quality of their games. You get bnet for free anyway. You think it's free to run all that infrastructure?


Stop being an @ssmonkey.