Is Blizzard Making StarCraft 2 Free to Play?

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Blizzard may be moving StarCraft 2 into the ‘free-to-play’ category soon according to Dustin Browder, the chief designer of StarCraft 2. The major roadblock to switching to a ‘free-to-play’ model will be the big problem of how to monetize the game and make it work for the company and the players.
 
I don't think F2P would work for an RTS game, in that game it truely would be about who spends the most real works coin, they would never be able to balance the game.

I would play, but I never purchased the original so I can't lose out
 
k1pp3r said:
I don't think F2P would work for an RTS game, in that game it truely would be about who spends the most real works coin, they would never be able to balance the game.

I would play, but I never purchased the original so I can't lose out
Click to expand...

I would point to examples like TF2. Starcraft is popular enough as a series, that I think they could get away with "flair" in game purchases for monetization. The competetive side of things will keep people playing, and give them encouragement to try to stand out as "players" or "teams" with certain flair purchases. That's just a theory anyway.
 
If I just want the SP side to the next 2 expansions of SC2, how would F2P work?
 
I have a sinking feeling this has to do with the upcoming MMORTS, End of Nations, which is actually pretty good by the way if going by the closed beta.

And, I would not be surprised it's partly due to the upcoming Command & Conquer Generals 2 games which is going to be online only thanks to stupid EA.
 
I only want it if I can buy zebra-coats for my zerglings...they get cold in the winter.
 
If they did this, allow all races on any Blizzard map for traditional games, but restrict custom maps to the "Top 10" perhaps?

I'm having trouble seeing how you can maintain core gameplay while also leaving "more" to get people to pay. TF2 has no single player and very little story. I doubt people would pay to hear more about Jim Raynor (even though the single player is well-done).

As the article suggests, nerfing gameplay ("You only get half the units") would be totally unfair.
 
Well they already have a decal and portrait system in place. People do insane things to earn some of them, so that's a potential area that could be easily monetized.
 
Hmmm... Advertisements that are unobtrusive... and I guess a premium fee (one time) to activate some multiplayer modes, single player and some exclusive maps?

That way they don't have to worry about balancing.
 
I do not like this new trend of not making you pay for the game then gouging you on all the content that comes with the DLCs. Just give me a game for a standard price and be done with it. Payment plans are a way to trick people into paying a lot more for the same product no matter how you cut it.
 
The worst part is making this pay-to-win.

I will say it now but I fucking hate pay-to-win games.

If I see some Siege Tank with "Increased deployment speed (-3 sec.), increased range (+15), and increased splash damage (+500)... for $9.99" in a cash shop of some kind, then Blizzard can kiss me goodbye and can kiss my ass.

I don't want to play online against some person who's willing to shove cash down Blizzard's throat like a blowjob in a porno just so that person can beat me in one minute thanks to all the cash shop units. That's not fair to anyone and anyone willing to pay-to-win are nothing more than cheaters.
 
ballistic90 said:
Hmmm... Advertisements that are unobtrusive... and I guess a premium fee (one time) to activate some multiplayer modes, single player and some exclusive maps?

That way they don't have to worry about balancing.
Click to expand...

In a sense SC2 is already F2P, you can try the first levels of the campaing and play select MP maps.

I guess level "unlocking" would work.

This is what I fear.

Click on the advert to select a unit. then click on a couple more to make it attack. Then click again for upgrades, again for making units, again for buildings, etc etc.

Marines brought you by Tiger Direct.
Zerlings courtesy of Chevrolet.
Sarah Kerrigan dressed by Dior.
 
octoberasian said:
The worst part is making this pay-to-win.

I will say it now but I fucking hate pay-to-win games.

If I see some Siege Tank with "Increased deployment speed (-3 sec.), increased range (+15), and increased splash damage (+500)... for $9.99" in a cash shop of some kind, then Blizzard can kiss me goodbye and can kiss my ass.

I don't want to play online against some person who's willing to shove cash down Blizzard's throat like a blowjob in a porno just so that person can beat me in one minute thanks to all the cash shop units. That's not fair to anyone and anyone willing to pay-to-win are nothing more than cheaters.
Click to expand...

That would destroy SC2 competitive scene. They most likely wont do that. Too much money at stake with the tournaments and stuff.
 
octoberasian said:
The worst part is making this pay-to-win.

I will say it now but I fucking hate pay-to-win games.

If I see some Siege Tank with "Increased deployment speed (-3 sec.), increased range (+15), and increased splash damage (+500)... for $9.99" in a cash shop of some kind, then Blizzard can kiss me goodbye and can kiss my ass.

I don't want to play online against some person who's willing to shove cash down Blizzard's throat like a blowjob in a porno just so that person can beat me in one minute thanks to all the cash shop units. That's not fair to anyone and anyone willing to pay-to-win are nothing more than cheaters.
Click to expand...

Not a chance with SC2. The competitive e-sports community is the most robust and progressive one out there.
 
octoberasian said:
The worst part is making this pay-to-win.

I will say it now but I fucking hate pay-to-win games.

If I see some Siege Tank with "Increased deployment speed (-3 sec.), increased range (+15), and increased splash damage (+500)... for $9.99" in a cash shop of some kind, then Blizzard can kiss me goodbye and can kiss my ass.

I don't want to play online against some person who's willing to shove cash down Blizzard's throat like a blowjob in a porno just so that person can beat me in one minute thanks to all the cash shop units. That's not fair to anyone and anyone willing to pay-to-win are nothing more than cheaters.
Click to expand...

+1...
 
If Blizz wants more money then maybe they should stop jerkin all the players around, and release the other 2 expansions that are far over due
 
This is bizarre.

SC2 was one of the best $60 purchases I have ever made. If they want to attract new players, why not drop the price to $30 or even $20? Oh well... As long having the full version omits you from being nickel-and-dimed then I guess I don't really GAF about this idea. But, part of what I still like about Blizzard is that they have kept to the philosophy of: "Here's our bad-ass game, pay $60 for it and we will continue to patch it, balance it, and add new content for free for years to come. If we add a lot of content at once then it will be an expansion." That's kind of what makes them stand out as a developer for me. I think that monetizing SC2 in any way, beyond purely cosmetic assets, would only dilute the fan-base.
 
What is really going on with Blizzard nowadays.

1. They made SC2 a three part series instead of 1 (obvious in the game that it was split last minute).
2. D3 is a flop because they initially wanted to make it an MMO and pretty much dismantled Blizzard North.
3. And now a F2P SC2??? That's ludicrous..


... only answer.. oh wait it's not just Blizzard anymore.. its Activision Blizzard

Coincidence?
 
Free 2 Play...

Translation: We don't want to deal with single player any more, and hope to exploit the shit out of micro-transactions.

IMO, they should have made Diablo 3 F2P, they already fucked it up for anyone who wants to play single player because their micro-transaction auction house dictates drop rates across the board.
 
This would be awful. I really wish people would stop being cheap and just buy games they want to play. Especially games that are actually made well, such as starcraft II.
 
thewooster said:
This would be awful. I really wish people would stop being cheap and just buy games they want to play. Especially games that are actually made well, such as starcraft II.
Click to expand...

1.5 million sales in 2 days is people being cheap?
 
So now we can look forward to "The Bereta Armory" and "The USMC Barracks" and "The Raytheon Missle Turret" or "The Walmart Supply Depot" ... should make it more strategic when you are scanning the screen for the Target logo or Starbucks logo to find your units :D ... I agree with others ... beyond a map purchase system or some non-strategic cosmetic change I don't see how they could monitize this game very easily
 
Starcraft have a chance to gain more fans IMO with EA making C&C F2P online

It would be very stupid for Blizzard to go down the same path as EA.
 
WasntMe said:
D3 was far from a flop... very far.
Click to expand...

From which perspective? For business sure, millions of copies sold at $60-100 dollars.

From a gaming/fanbase standpoint, yes. If you need more info on that, just google metacritic Diablo 3 then metacritic Torchlight 2. TL2 has a chance at game of the year for ARPGs, D3, not even close.
 
Briteball said:
If Blizz wants more money then maybe they should stop jerkin all the players around, and release the other 2 expansions that are far over due
Click to expand...

+1, "the_warden" anti cheat BS really grew my disdain for them. along with destroying my favorite franchise Diablo
 
I was excited for SC2 and that fizzled quickly once I learned it would be spread across 3 full games.
It was still a good game, but where the heck are the zerg and protoss packs???

Blizzard had it right for years, great games and after a year or so a $20 expansion pack made it awesome again.

Now the market is clouded with Day 1 DLC thats$15 bucks and they release it on a monthly cycle, much of it stuff that was designed for the core game (or even worse, as mass effect did, hide content on the disk and sell if back to you) This is saying nothing of the $0.99 silly hats and $3 dollar "super gear." This nickel and diming (which is what F2P basically is) is killing games and I worry about it especially for an RTS.

Startcraft 1 is still beloved and played, over a decade later, because bliz made a great game and kept supporting it.

Starcraft 2 could carry that torch if they just released the Zerg and Protoss games, and even a yearly DLC (read: expansion pack) that adds additional maps, units, game modes and set it up where battle.net only matches users to other users with the same DLC's (which if they are released yearly shouldn't be too hard).

Activision will no doubt ruin SC2 by selling "double XP weekends" and crap like that if it goes f2p.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about the F2P model with SCII, but I still have trust in the development team overseeing the game based on the continued attention it has received since its release.

The biggest problem I see is hacking. Right now if people are caught hacking they have to go repurchase an SCII key for $60, which is a pretty big barrier. If a cheater can get back into the game simply by signing up with a new email then we're going to see a lot more assholes cheating their way to the top of the ladder.

What I'd like to see is Blizzard offer some cosmetic changes for a small price, offering the single player campaign for a price, and then offering each race on multi player for a reasonable price. For example, if you consider single player about half the game then you could choose to purchase the single player campaign for, say, $30, then you could purchase each race for say $10 for permanent multi player use. Blizzard could then do something similar to LoL and simply rotate which race is free to play for a given month, so if you didn't want to buy a race you could play terran for a month, then zerg for a month, and then protoss for a month before cycling back to terran.

In a lot of ways I'd actually prefer this pricing structure. I don't care to play Blizzard's horribly written single player campaigns anymore (D3 was so bad it almost defies description), so this would actually save me $30 right off the bat. I don't play Terran or Zerg online ever, so there is another $20 in savings. This could also help with cheaters as they'd eventually run out of credit card/personal information to provide BLizzard that hasn't already been identified as the info of a cheater. Plus, if I'm only spending $10, I'd be more open to buying some personalized elements to tailor the game more to my liking (nothing changing gameplay, just cosmetic stuff).

This would also give the really hardcore the opportunity to cheaply play their race in other servers (Korea, Asia/Pac, EU). Not to mention that by allowing people to freely play the races online Blizzard would be opening up the game to a bigger audience, which could serve to increase the reach of e-sports.
 
The fanbase / userbase for D3 is probably only 2nd to WoW. Its a huge cash cow with the RMAH.

It'll only get bigger for the next couple of years.
 
I am uninterested in playing with the hordes of Brazilians, who are not much better then a race of subterranean rat men, spamming "BR? BR? BR? BR?", "HUHUHUHUHUHUHUH" AND "FUCK AMERICA FAG" even when they play on Euro F2P servers. They are the bane of every F2P scene. Ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top