Solid analogy, "Clean my room". You're one of the dumb kids.
Like others have said, any sort of fee would ensure better, more regular patching and that's good for anyone who can pony up a few dollars a year. Not so good for kids w/o access to a credit card but great for everyone who doesn't have to deal with said kids.
You fail to understand a few concepts, first being that kids have parents (Shocking... kids don't just poof into existence out of no where). You also fail to understand that paying more =/= more patches. For example, Guild Wars receives more patches then WoW, WoW has a subscription fee, guild wars doesn't.
Crisium
USEast
21. Re: Why Battle.net 2.0 Needs a Subscription F 06/04/2009 12:16:34 PM PDT
Q u o t e: At first I was turned off to the idea of playing a montly, or yearly fee to play StarCraft II on the new Battle.net, but then I read a post which I will now quote. This quote is what changed my mind:
And that right there is almost enough to make me want to pay to play.
Adding a subscription fee will not stop the kiddies from playing. If you've ever played wow you'll know that a large chunk of the populace are 12 year olds who get daddy to foot the bill so they can log on and act like... well, 12 year olds.
Darax
USWest
24. Re: Why Battle.net 2.0 Needs a Subscription F 06/04/2009 01:38:03 PM PDT
Adding a subscription fee will not stop the kiddies from playing. If you've ever played wow you'll know that a large chunk of the populace are 12 year olds who get daddy to foot the bill so they can log on and act like... well, 12 year olds.
indeed
Karune
Blizzard Poster
25. Re: Why Battle.net 2.0 Needs a Subscription F 06/04/2009 03:08:16 PM PDT
Q u o t e: When a player buys the StarCraft II box at retail, they will have the ability to play on the new Battle.net for free.
For those listening to the latest Activision Blizzard conference call, Mike Morhaime also mentions it there as well.
Although I agree with the idea that less idiots is nice, it's definitely in the spirit of StarCraft for anyone to be able to play for free. It's great, and it makes the game the open field that it should be. Sometimes it's nice to have less serious players around to remind us that games are games -- not just competitions.
Although I agree with the idea that less idiots is nice, it's definitely in the spirit of StarCraft for anyone to be able to play for free. It's great, and it makes the game the open field that it should be. Sometimes it's nice to have less serious players around to remind us that games are games -- not just competitions.
Making sure players of all levels are able to have a fun multiplayer experience is a top priority for us. More info regarding this effort will be revealed in conjunction with info on Battle.net. For now, know that if you don't have 300 APM...it’s quite OK. We've got plans to keep online play fun and challenging at the same time, while also making the atmosphere feel less intimidating for the vast majority of us who aren’t pro-level players.
Karune
Blizzard Poster
36. Re: Why Battle.net 2.0 Needs a Subscription F 06/04/2009 04:11:58 PM PDT
Q u o t e: Originally posted by Karune [Blizzard Poster]
When a player buys the StarCraft II box at retail, they will have the ability to play on the new Battle.net for free.
The way this is worded is concerning me somewhat. Can you confirm that Battle.net 2.0 is free forever, even to someone who buys a used copy? And not e.g. when you buy a retail box you are given a code for x months free and then have to pay after that, or a one-time use code (a la the Rock Band 2 20 free songs download, if you're familiar with that), meaning that reselling a used copy will not include battle.net 2.0 free?
