I personally find it annoying that so many companies want you to use THEIR PC online gaming interface because they're much too proud and important to use someone else's. This creates confusion and frustration for the consumer because he/she has to keep up with so many different services at once just to play a couple of different games.
Just swallow your pride, people, and move development over to Steam. You KNOW it's better. Don't fight it, accept it.
Please no. The Live service that DoW2 uses is the clunkiest online matchmaking interface I've ever seen on a PC.
Although, considering that "Xbox Live" is kind of a buzzword for "good online" in today's gaming climate, I wouldn't be surprised if Bobby Kotick were just spewing marketing-speak.
Of course it will be a paid-service.
No such thing as a free lunch in this world.
Same as xbox live , you have to paid a monthly fee, just to play with other players.
@ye0073: Except that XBox Live is the exception, not the rule. PSN, Steam, Impulse, Station Launcher and other gaming networks run with no cost to the user.
@ZackRI: Yes, that's what I'm hoping. Not many companies can go from offering free to "for pay". Blizzard can probably pull it off, but it's one of very, very few. I like Diablo so much, I probably would pay to play. God... I'm making myself sick. lol.
@myketuna: Blizzard put ONE rainbow in some D3 screen shots and look what happened. A petition with over 10,000 signatures. Make them pay to see those rainbows in an online game? All hell would break loose. This time it would be outside of the game :P
@ZackRI: I think it's rather sad that people can't make a metaphor without people pointing out some issue with what it's being compared to. It's also silly that people would be throwing a fit over this, when nobody SAID it would be a payed for service, but people assume that, because it'll be "like Xbox Live", it MUST be payed for.
As far as that goes, I don't think it will be a pay-to-use service, or if it is, they will hopefully tie that in with your World of Warcraft subscription. I wouldn't disagree if certain premium features require you to pay, but this should be worth the cost, and like I said earlier, it would be nice if they would allow your World of Warcraft account to double as a premium Battle.net account.
God the internet is full of the whiniest bitches ever.
Either the game is released without enough features, and people would complain that it's just milking the customers.
It could be released with too many features, and they're useless or it's clearly a ploy to steal your money.
It's a wonder any game company does anything for their 'fans'.
@wtf_G: Yeah. How DARE consumers do things like communicate what they want and refuse to pay for services they don't. They should shut up and buy things regardless of their feelings on them like good little automata.
@ThisCharmingMan: So what, me and my housemates have to each buy separate copies of the game? Or kid brothers still at school, living with the parents need to buy two copies to play each other?
If they go and force annual fees on Diablo 3 I won't be buying it. I don't want to talk to people playing World of Warcraft while I'm playing Diablo, especially not if I have to pay for it.
wouldn't "connect, communicate and share experiences with each other" be the bare basics of an MP service?
And "Bobby Kotick says the cross-game service will be "similar to Xbox Live,"" never bodes well. Cos one thing I know about XBL is the yearly fee. And one thing IU know about Boby Kotick is he likes his shiny dollars. So which parts of XBL is he gonna pull inspiration from?
@BubbleF**kingBuddy: Maybe you are; I mean, it's not anywhere near finished yet. If SC2 messes up, we can blame Activision for wanting to rush the product out.
@BubbleF**kingBuddy: Don't worry broham. SC2 wont be a disaster since Blizzard is doing it. If there's one thing I am certain of, it is that Activision is going to let the Blizzard team take as much time as they need to work their magic.
They will surely be repaid handsomely after its release. With Blizzards track record, I dought Activision would want to bring a bad name to the developer for a quick buck, as it may mean less sales/money in the future.
@AnonUserAnonymous: I just had to reply, simply because of how humorously naive your statement was. "I doubt Activision would want to bring a bad name to the developer for a quick buck".
See? I'm still laughing.
Activision had free reign of the Tony Hawk series, which, at one point, was critically acclaimed, and a mega-blockbuster. Look what they did to it.
Activision managed to buy complete control of the Guitar Hero series from Harmonix. Look at what they did to it.
Activision couldn't get Infinity Ward to release Call of Duty games fast enough, so they were willing to hire a crappier developer to put out games in-between the "official" ones, diluting the franchise, simply for a quick buck.
Now, tell me again- do you think Activision wouldn't do it to Blizzard?
@Ad-hominem: Despite Activision's bad track record, I am doubtful of any claims that Blizzard is under then influence of Activision when the majority of the shares in the merged company is owned by Blizzard's parent, Vivendi (54%). I don't think that there's any proof that Blizzard is worse off after the merger and they haven't released a game (nor an expansion pack) since then either.
Src: [en.wikipedia.org]
@Ad-hominem: I'm not talking about any other developer. I'm talking about Blizzard Entertainment. Sorry I don't look at things under one light like most people. I know Activision is all about the money, so is every other big corporation. Simple fact of the matter is, no other developer they hire is going to have the Blizzard talent.
Destroying Blizzards reputation will lose them more money in the long run than they gain in the short run. Blizzard has very loyal fans and destroying one of Blizzards franchises does not seem viable for them monetarily. Not to mention, they obviously aren't making Blizzard rush it out because it wouldn't be delayed as we speak. So no, I dont think Activision will do that to Blizzard. At the Least, not SC2 or WoW.
If you have to pay to play, then you can say good buy to my money Blizzard ... no matter how much I want to play Diablo III.
If you support one company, then the rest will try the same scheme, and then it will become the norm, no matter how crappy/good the service. I for one, am opposed to that.
If it's free sign me up NOW!
@gold163 Have Explosive:
Oh god, oh GOD no! Double subscriptions!? Well Activision have been showing their evil side ...
@Arc-: Dude, those were the days. I think I've started around 10 different Battle.net characters over the time I have owned Diablo II.
True about the servers always being packed.
@AXATAX: Don't be surprised when there's some kind of premium service for Battle.net 2.0. All the evidence is already there such as no LAN support, them wanting to monetize it somehow, and the fact that WoW is guaranteed to lose subscriptions to Starcraft 2. On top of that they decided to merge your battle.net account with your WoW account for some reason.
@AXATAX: If it's free to play, then I'll be buying Diablo III, every expansion for it, and the entire trilogy of Starcraft. If it isn't, I'll just completely forget about it.
I'm not *entirely* sure I buy the explanation. I would if there weren't quite a few games that seem to be pushing back just past Christmas. What is up with that? There's a bunch of games planned for Q1 2010, around feb: AVP3, possibly Mass Effect 2, now this? Why do you suppose that is, I mean--it can't literally be JUST because Halo ODST was coming out (as was suggested to me by someone else). What gives?
I can't play WoW anymore. Im one of those real life recovering addicts that get mentioned. Seriously, I failed out of college because I didn't want to do anything but smoke bongs and play WoW.
I was clean for about 4 months, June-September of last year, after having played since September of the year before. Then played it again to two months to see if I was missing out on anything. I wasn't.
I just don't have any desire left to play the game. Probably because most people I ever talk about it with IRL are completely rabid and make me not want to play (see:fanboy, even if they are nice about it) ever again.
And yknow, its not even the money thing that is stopping me from playing. It cost me less money to be addicted to WoW than it does to be addicted to my xbox and playstation. I just lost the desire to play somewhere, and Im in no mood to go looking for it again.
08/06/09
Just swallow your pride, people, and move development over to Steam. You KNOW it's better. Don't fight it, accept it.
08/05/09
Although, considering that "Xbox Live" is kind of a buzzword for "good online" in today's gaming climate, I wouldn't be surprised if Bobby Kotick were just spewing marketing-speak.
08/05/09
No such thing as a free lunch in this world.
Same as xbox live , you have to paid a monthly fee, just to play with other players.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/06/09
As far as that goes, I don't think it will be a pay-to-use service, or if it is, they will hopefully tie that in with your World of Warcraft subscription. I wouldn't disagree if certain premium features require you to pay, but this should be worth the cost, and like I said earlier, it would be nice if they would allow your World of Warcraft account to double as a premium Battle.net account.
08/05/09
Either the game is released without enough features, and people would complain that it's just milking the customers.
It could be released with too many features, and they're useless or it's clearly a ploy to steal your money.
It's a wonder any game company does anything for their 'fans'.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/06/09
08/06/09
Don't know if you kept up-to-date but LAN play has been taken out of SC2.
I blame this all on activision.
08/06/09
08/06/09
08/06/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
And "Bobby Kotick says the cross-game service will be "similar to Xbox Live,"" never bodes well. Cos one thing I know about XBL is the yearly fee. And one thing IU know about Boby Kotick is he likes his shiny dollars. So which parts of XBL is he gonna pull inspiration from?
08/05/09
Maybe I'm just in a worried mood today.
08/05/09
08/05/09
They will surely be repaid handsomely after its release. With Blizzards track record, I dought Activision would want to bring a bad name to the developer for a quick buck, as it may mean less sales/money in the future.
08/05/09
See? I'm still laughing.
Activision had free reign of the Tony Hawk series, which, at one point, was critically acclaimed, and a mega-blockbuster. Look what they did to it.
Activision managed to buy complete control of the Guitar Hero series from Harmonix. Look at what they did to it.
Activision couldn't get Infinity Ward to release Call of Duty games fast enough, so they were willing to hire a crappier developer to put out games in-between the "official" ones, diluting the franchise, simply for a quick buck.
Now, tell me again- do you think Activision wouldn't do it to Blizzard?
08/05/09
Src: [en.wikipedia.org]
08/05/09
Destroying Blizzards reputation will lose them more money in the long run than they gain in the short run. Blizzard has very loyal fans and destroying one of Blizzards franchises does not seem viable for them monetarily. Not to mention, they obviously aren't making Blizzard rush it out because it wouldn't be delayed as we speak. So no, I dont think Activision will do that to Blizzard. At the Least, not SC2 or WoW.
08/05/09
If you support one company, then the rest will try the same scheme, and then it will become the norm, no matter how crappy/good the service. I for one, am opposed to that.
If it's free sign me up NOW!
08/05/09
08/05/09
Oh god, oh GOD no! Double subscriptions!? Well Activision have been showing their evil side ...
@Arc-: Dude, those were the days. I think I've started around 10 different Battle.net characters over the time I have owned Diablo II.
True about the servers always being packed.
08/05/09
08/06/09
08/05/09
11/10/08
11/10/08
11/10/08
...actually I don't see the point of having anything signed now that I think about it, except maybe the price you could get for it at e-bay
11/10/08
I was clean for about 4 months, June-September of last year, after having played since September of the year before. Then played it again to two months to see if I was missing out on anything. I wasn't.
I just don't have any desire left to play the game. Probably because most people I ever talk about it with IRL are completely rabid and make me not want to play (see:fanboy, even if they are nice about it) ever again.
And yknow, its not even the money thing that is stopping me from playing. It cost me less money to be addicted to WoW than it does to be addicted to my xbox and playstation. I just lost the desire to play somewhere, and Im in no mood to go looking for it again.