No mention of free battle.net play?

[calories]

Or did I miss it somewhere?

I may come off like a cheap-o here, but a subscription fee could very well turn me off from playing this game.

[Deetox]

I concour.

[Meenah]

It doesn't look like an mmo to me, judging from the top-camera view and if it isn't an MMO, monthly fees would be worthless.

[Kiroptus]

Well I think it will be free. Afterall I guess SC2 on Bnet will be free too right?

The only real restriction that could happen, and I would not care, is to make each cd-key to have only one account.

[Meenah]

Yeah, I agree with Kiro here. I think they know that the diablo playerbase is completely different than WoW and we don't want a Diablo MMO aka pay-to-play.

If you want diablo mmo, then the WoW expansion will be gothic and dark, right for your needs :p

[Cwicseolfor]

I damnwell better be pay-once.

[Meenah]

I am actually prepared to state that I strongly believe it will NOT be a monthly fee. Why? Scrolling down the official Diablo 3 site I see the Battle.Net logo. As Blizzard themselves does NOT host the battle.net servers, a monthly fee is not likely. For instance, in Europe, the company Telia hosts the Battle.net servers.

[Cwicseolfor]

Perhaps, but Blizzard has said they have not yet decided on the fee structure.

The very fact that there is anything to decide irks me.

[Kev]

i heard battle.net will run the online system again, so most likely free.

[jleezy0]

I think it'd be just like diablo II. Buy the game, use the cd key to acces BNET.
I mean, battle net has never been Pay to play. Warcraft and Starcraft was all just buy the game and play the Bnet. I don't think we'll have to worry about paying monthly subscription fees

[Zarniwoop]

Everyone here knows damned well, that if they have some minor pay system, they will play. Posturing is futile. IF you won't pay, you won't be gaming in the future in a multiplayer environment.

I've wished it would be pay for years as it would push the level of the community higher. but, knowing Blizzard, I wouldn't be too worried. I'll be surprised if D3 Ships with a pay requirement.

I could see them offering auction house like services for a couple bucks a month or something. Everyone else could trade the old way.

I highly doubt I'll do my trading anywhere but here.

[Crudesash68]

With respect, I'd like to say that before I played WoW, I was vehemently opposed tp pay-to-play gaming, even making bold oaths on this website about how I would die before doing so....

Well, I am still alive, and a hypocrite, I guess. I love WoW, I know a lot of people don't, and that's cool, but it has been a lot of fun for me, and the cost to pay? I never even think about it.

At first I did, wondering if it was worth it; but the game is so immense, so much to do, that it takes quite a long time to get stale, certainly a lot longer than you mind paying for it.

And it is certainly true that the player base is more mature, though there are exceptions, because let's face it, some parents just give kids whatever they want. That aside, you are always aware that you and everyone around you is paying for their time, and they respect you and vice versa.

I wouldn't pay for a D2 style game though; there isn't nearly enough content to justify it.

[Rashiminos]

If DIII involves a monthly, I'll stick to DII and HG:L unsubbed, tyvm...

[Q33]

Everyone here knows damned well, that if they have some minor pay system, they will play. Posturing is futile. IF you won't pay, you won't be gaming in the future in a multiplayer environment.

Hehe, Im going to make one of those bold oaths that other people seem to have broken...if D3 is pay to play in any way, even a minor fee, I will not buy it. And what you say is true...I won't be gaming in the the future of multiplayer environment. I am pretty much already done with gaming, and the only game I would buy right when it comes out is Diablo 3, simply because of the fond memories I have of D2. I haven't bought a new game since Warcraft 3 first came out, and that was 5 years ago.

[Baranor]

DIII has already been confirmed as single player and multiplayer, so a strict MMO-system is already out. I'd say either free, or a small fee. Both ways I'm playing. $20/month, and I'm only doing single player.

[Akse]

If they aren't making any kind of content patches.. the monthly fee is not there i suppose. I just hope they keep enough people around d3 to make sure it will be updated enough and keep away cheats.

[Leohappy]

Perhaps, but Blizzard has said they have not yet decided on the fee structure.

The very fact that there is anything to decide irks me.
i believe they said they're undecided. if there is a fee, it will most likely be in china and korea,where many people play in internet cafe's, and because of gaming laws, which prevent people from getting addicted.

or so i heard.

regardless. blizzard knows the diablo community is different from the wow community, they must have learned that in those 4 years. it's still like 50,000 people playing d2 on bnet (europe server) and they don't care about wow at all.

so the challenge for them is to create a game which doesn't require a fee, but can also be run online for many years, with only a small maintenance.

[Thyiad]

Everyone here knows damned well, that if they have some minor pay system, they will play. Posturing is futile. IF you won't pay, you won't be gaming in the future in a multiplayer environment.

Personally I don't want to game in a MP environment. I want to play either solo or with friends I trust who I know are legitimate, courteous players over TCP/IP. I don't see why I should pay if I'm not using their servers. And I don't want to use their servers. The way HG:L did MP was idiotic.

I've wished it would be pay for years as it would push the level of the community higher.

I disagree. There are good guys and bad guys and idiots all around; paying for it doesn't eliminate them. WoW is paid for by kids' parents from pocket money. People who work don't have time to play enough to justify the cost - or I don't - and those who don't work, don't have the cash.

Pay to play does not equal players with an IQ above their shoe size.

It does give lower ping, ingame Moderators and better chance of updates.

[ezrider2]

I think they mentioned they will be revamping Battle.net for the new games, and it will contain alot of new features for cooperative / competitive play (D3 - SC2).

Seeing as how FSS has a pay-for-features for Hellgate, I'm wondering if Blizz will do the same for D3. The world of Sanctuary is huge. So I wonder if they would open extra parts of the world, or new end-game quest (and loot) to those who pay a fee. Same as some end-game / items are only avail on b.net in D2 closed/ladder.

[Reth]

To be honest I hope they either choose a fee or no fee not both. If they had a mp system Like HG:L I would always feel jipped and always decide to pay. I would rather they didn't have a fee though.

[DoomyDoomyDoomDoom]

I passed on Hellgate the moment I heard of the monthly fee. Even if it is optional, I would've just felt like I was missing out. Like paying for part of a game.

Besides that, the demo left me feeling unimpressed.


If D3 does some crap like that I will just stick to singleplayer.

[Student]

I expect there to be a fee.... and actually hope there is. A small fee of $5 - $10 a month would improve the game quality and help ensure that cheats are quickly patched. It costs a lot of money to maintain the servers and bandwidth. If I am going to invest my time, I would rather invest it in something of high quality rather than a free, lower quality service.

[etslayer]

The problem with having a monthly fee is that people who are just casual players who don't have the time to play much, or have no interest in grinding every day, will never play online. If you look at the WoW crowd, pretty much every single WoW player that I know has been incredibly commited. I havn't met a WoW player who only plays every now and then (unless they are past their hardcore stage). I believe that all the would-be casual players are turned away by the monthley fee, and that's why there are so few of them. I think that having a monthly payment is like saying "if you want to play online, you have to COMMIT to it, or don't bother playing it at all". It's a huge turn-off for your typical consumer (the people who post in these forums are not typical consumers, they are hardcore). Anybody who says that monthley fees are good for the game (of course they are good for the game maintenance duh, but that's not the point) are people that already know that they will be spending a lot of time playing, so they don't care. But I know first hand a lot of people who enjoy diablo, but if told they would have to pay a monthley fee just to play online, they would say they dont have enough time on their hands to justify this, and it would just be a bummer. And I don't care if there are random people comming online who don't take the game seriously at all. It's a game for **** sake. And I don't see why any committed players should care. Personally, I would pay the fee because I plan on getting in deep. But from the point of view of a person who works full time and has a family to feed, it would be downright rediculous to be paying monthley fees for a game that they already spent a wad of cash to buy in stores. I know I can't speak for all people, but that's the case for a lot of people I know. D3 should be a game for everybody, not just the hardcore.

[Swiffer]

No mention of paid battle.net either, so i think everyone is being overly alarmist at this stage.

I am actually prepared to state that I strongly believe it will NOT be a monthly fee. Why? Scrolling down the official Diablo 3 site I see the Battle.Net logo. As Blizzard themselves does NOT host the battle.net servers, a monthly fee is not likely. For instance, in Europe, the company Telia hosts the Battle.net servers.

Battle.net and the WoW realms all use AT&T for hosting. Battle.net is free, WoW is not, so i really cannot think you can make a determination on those grounds.

[KiLLJOi]

I wouldn't pay a monthly fee even if it was as low as $4/month.
The countless millions of dollars Blizzard will make within the first year of D3s release should be motive enough to want to please all their loyal fans and buyers, without nagging them for extra profit

[Davidus]

with millions of SC2 and D3 players the new battle.net going to have lots of advertising.
both games are going to be free but we have to watch intel, nvidia, ati etc adverts in the chat rooms

[KiLLJOi]

"You're level 94, now buy an iPod" :wink:

[etslayer]

And they already know that they will be charging us with an expansion pack. 5 character classes? Please... At least TRY to make it look like you aren't squeezing us dry, Blizzard. If they add a monthly charge I will be super pissed.

[KiLLJOi]

I think they are going to have their hands full with the different gender classes but yes an expansion pack seems likely, I wouldnt mind paying for additional discs but a monthly fee will probably force single player on me...

[Jcakes]

I remember reading somewher that a high up Blizzard official once said that all games played on Bnet will be free. If it is pay 2 play I would just play single player / TCP/IP with friends.

[Volvagia]

Here's the type of system I'd expect to see.

A similar ladder/nonladder system as what we have now.

Nonladder being able to play through the game on bnet, but you aren't ranked and don't have access to the higher-end items.

Then there's the "Premium" players who pay the fee, are ranked on the ladder, and have a much broader range of items to choose from. Maybe some additional side quests or something too.

Honestly, I think that may do a slightly better job at filtering out your typical 4 yr old, than just a MMO style flat fee.

Dumb kid: "Daddy will you pay $10 bucks a month so I can play my game?"
Dad: "It says on the box that you can play online for free though.."
Dumb kid: "But it's better if we pay! I get better items, more quests, and the whole world can see my rank!"
Dad: "Keep bugging me and I'll return it and you won't play at all.."

Personally, I'd feel a little better about eating a monthly fee if it was something like that rather than simply everybody pays to play.

[Magi]

It does give lower ping, ingame Moderators and better chance of updates.

This alone has made me change my mind. I used to be vehemently opposed to "pay to play" games. I'd be comfortable with a $9.99 (usd) per month fee if it meant we'd have more reliable servers, people on bnet who are paid to "babysit", frequent updates/patches that prevent or reverse various exploits (i.e. duping, etc).

For me, it'd just mean two less times eating out for lunch, but YMMV.