Blizzard looking into free-to-play Starcraft

StarCraft 2 lead designer Dustin Browder says the company is looking into the possibility of F2P for the multiplayer, but doesn't know how to monetize the idea.

41

PC companies big and small are looking at free-to-play as a new way of generating revenue. Blizzard is no exception, and has reportedly been thinking about ways it could use the F2P model for StarCraft 2's multiplayer mode.

PC Games N reports that at an eSports panel, lead designer Dustin Browder said the company is "looking at free-to-play as an option for the multiplayer." Multiplayer remains one of the series' most popular features, especially for its ties to eSports competitions.

The problem, though, is that Blizzard hasn't figured out how to make any money off a free-to-play model, since the mode wasn't conceptualized that way. And more importantly, would a free-to-play Starcraft game even be fun? "We don't know how we would monetize it," Browder said. "While it might be good fun for me to play against someone with only half the units available to them, that's not going to be an enjoyable experience for them."

Editor-In-Chief
From The Chatty
  • reply
    September 24, 2012 3:00 PM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Blizzard looking into free-to-play Starcraft.

    StarCraft 2 lead designer Dustin Browder says the company is looking into the possibility of F2P for the multiplayer, but doesn't know how to monetize the idea.

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 3:20 PM

      Leave Starcraft alone and maybe look over at Warcraft again?

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 3:21 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 3:24 PM

      Ad supported is the only thing that would work.. as long as there's a normal paid version I guess I don't really care - faster quickmatching :p

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 3:33 PM

        Ad supported hasn't worked for anyone, though, has it? Two different companies went bankrupt trying to do ads in Quake Live.

        • reply
          September 24, 2012 4:21 PM

          id and Bethesda?

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 4:38 PM

            Nah, some third parties. I can't remember their names, but Carmack mentioned it in this years Quakecon keynote.

      • reply
        September 25, 2012 3:26 PM

        The time when internet ads were worth anything except in huge volume (we're talking like a thousand for a few dollars) is loooooong over. I don't see how any game could run completely ad supported.

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 3:29 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 3:31 PM

      rmah i kid

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 3:36 PM

      HATS

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 3:38 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 3:42 PM

      F2P is the new cancer of gaming. Adding grind/unlock/rpg mechanics to everything, even where they dont make sense. If its not entirely pay to win then sacrificing visual readability through "cosmetic" unlocks.

      What happened to competitive games where everyone starts on even ground, and the way players feel "special" or "unique" is not through their character level/items/hats/skins, but through their deep gameplay experiences and their fast reactions, quick thinking and their playstyle.

      Yes its great that more people are getting into gaming and the casual audience has huge monetary potential, but as a result, the average gaming IQ has dropped significantly, and most companies are now catering to the lowest common denominator. The problem is not that some companies are doing this, but almost every company is alienating their core/loyal audience for a more volatile one that couldn't give two shits and only care what most of the people on facebook/twitter are playing so they can proceed to +1 it from their ipads in a hipster "cool geek" cafe.

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 3:48 PM

        f2p gave us a new Tribes and Mechwarrior game. This alone invalidates your post in its entirety.

        • reply
          September 24, 2012 4:00 PM

          call me when people are still playing that steaming pile of shit (new tribes) in 5 years.

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 4:01 PM

            Get. The. FUCK. Off. My. Internet.

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 4:20 PM

            flush yourself down your own toilet.

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 4:25 PM

            Everyone give this guy attention. It's clearly what he craves.

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 4:30 PM

            ohhhh k, you can take a seat over there.

        • reply
          September 24, 2012 4:24 PM

          dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.
          post hoc ergo propter hoc.
          False Dichotomy via falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus.

          You picked a couple of atypical outliers/exceptions to refute the general case by cherry picking. Furthermore, I am arguing against the F2P component/layer itself, not the underlying game which are separable parts. It is incorrect to indicate that only one component is tied to the success of the game. It is the gameplay that primarily makes a game. You cant sell a game on pure F2P, there needs to be some gameplay, regardless of how good it is.

          Also, if you know what you were talking about, a lot of tribes (T1/T2) vets have skipped this one because they were immediately turned off by the F2P aspect. As a starsiege tribes player myself who participated in the beta, I was intially put off, but after giving it a second chance, I was so impressed that they more or less kept the tribes feel/movement, that for the first time I dropped cash (an ample amount also) on an F2P game, not because I wanted to unlock shit, but because I wanted to reward HiRez on doing such a good job. I still would of prefered a full/upfront game with no unlocking/levelling/grinding/RPG cos that shit doesnt belong in a competitive skill based game, BUT...

          For a game like Tribes with a high skill ceiling, It needs to be F2P to maintain a constantly incoming stream of new players (read: mostly COD/BF cannon fodder that leaves after a while discouraged) so that the servers stay populated.

          Tribes (and probably mech warrior) are more or less outliers, but a lot of F2P muddies the purity of the game, and even though they are relatively successful, its not necessarily because of the F2P.

          This invalidates your post. Dont be so sure of yourself.

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 4:28 PM

            You've decided you don't like F2P and are willingly throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

            Congratulations, you're an extreme left/right winger, unable to see the other side

            • reply
              September 24, 2012 4:36 PM

              Nope, I am not political.

              My reply states specifically that there are exceptions to general rules/trends and that black/white attitudes are incorrect.

              So we agree. good.

              I am only saying that it is fallacious to state that a few cases invalidates the general case, and to tie one component to overall success (its not the F2P that makes the game, and conversely, its not only the F2P that breaks it), and that its not a black and white thing. And finally that what I'm arguing is about gameplay purity (particularly in a competitve/skill-based context), not monetary success.

              I am also giving a true example of myself enjoying and supporting Tribes:Ascend, an F2P game, which I still regularly play. But just because I do, it doesn't mean I like the F2P aspect, and it doesnt invalidate my argument. You simpleton.

              Gamer IQ really has dropped...

              • reply
                September 24, 2012 5:06 PM

                Wasn't talking about your politics, I was talking about your ideology. You've just clearly hashed out how you feel about f2p, you feel very strongly, and you're not coming here to debate. You're just coming here to hold forum in public and tell folks how you are right.

                And as I said in my Shackmessage, it behooves one to talk colder rather than hotter.

                • reply
                  September 24, 2012 5:44 PM

                  Yes, I immediately felt that I shouldn't of said that, and apologies to you. We are all gamers and in this together, so thanks for the message.

                  However, just because I was rude it does not make my previous point incorrect. And with all respect, just because you are a mod, it does not make you correct either.

                  I never said there should be no F2P; it has its upsides: see my Tribes example. Its the next step of monetization. Nothing can stop this. But at the very least if more people are aware and vocal about some of some of its downsides, then the faster developers will be able to react and find a good balance.

                  Tribes for example, needs F2P to have enough populated servers, and I'm glad it does.

                  I'm not throwing any babies out. All I'm saying is "hey, go and smell that bathwater, Did you realise it was that dirty?"

                  • reply
                    September 24, 2012 5:52 PM

                    If you were Mitt Romney, we would be having an awesome thread about how he supports cancer right about now.

                    • reply
                      September 24, 2012 6:05 PM

                      My viewpoint has so far been completely orthogonal to what has been responded.

                      I'm saying:
                      "Some of the side effects of F2P are starting to get really annoying!"

                      and you and others are saying:
                      "Well F2P games do well (here are some examples), and I get to try them out for free, so you are both wrong and bigoted!"

                      A falsely detected attack on your opinions, and a miserable counter argument.

                      Just because I apologized for being rude it does not make me incorrect. You know my intent, and are deliberately misinterpreting it. I showed you some respect. You should do the same.

                    • reply
                      September 24, 2012 6:15 PM

                      "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

                      I have just learned this lesson the hard way.

                      Its impossible to say anything mildly complex on this site (or maybe the internet, or maybe to people in general) because you run the risk of being put into a "fanboy" or "hater" category.

                      More accurately:

                      "Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

                      Fuck it. You win. I'm off.

                      • reply
                        September 24, 2012 6:21 PM

                        lesson learned. never post anything with nuance here

                        • reply
                          September 24, 2012 6:29 PM

                          Yeah, because calling something a cancer is so very nuanced.

                          You know, the good type of cancer! Like... uhh... the one that only kills kids!

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 4:28 PM

            change post hoc to cum hoc

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 5:11 PM

            Quality anything is always an outlier. You can use your same argument to claim everything is a cancer on their respective fields.

            The key is to focus on the outliers and ignore the rest. As geedeck pointed out, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

            • reply
              September 24, 2012 5:30 PM

              First of all I never said I hate F2P. It works in some games in some ways (but it still leaves a smell). I said it was cancerous because it leaves negative effects, spreads, and affects the host.

              Basically, it tends to turn most games it touches into a massive time sink for grinding, and reduces the focus to who has the best loot/money/xp/time. While this works great in some games/genres, it has a noticeably cheapening effect on a lot of others. It also dilutes the quality of players in multiplayer, as there is no barrier to entry, so you get alt accounts, griefers, people who dont contribute, etc. These aren't simply my opinion, they are facts, and I have a lot of experience with F2P games which I otherwise love, but see firsthand the effects of F2P on the community.

              Just because the dirty bathwater has a baby in it, it doesn't mean that I will drink it.

              I am astonished at how good you guys are at connecting invisible dots.If theres one thing that gets me aggravated, its unsound logic backed with an air of confidence. There is a difference between opinion and fact. I respect everyone's opinion and right to enjoy whatever they want.

              Having said that, I apologize to yourself, geedeck, and anyone else I might have personally offended, my intent was not to hurt anyone, but just to let off some steam about something thats been nagging me for a long time.

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 5:22 PM

            but a lot of F2P muddies the purity of the game you are really really new to the internet

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 8:03 PM

            This invalidates your post. Dont be so sure of yourself. lol

        • reply
          September 24, 2012 4:34 PM

          nope, it makes half-assed games fucking hip like tiny tower and jurassic park for mobile devices.

          just let me pay 2 dollars and you assholes design a game that just isnt time-based.

        • reply
          September 24, 2012 4:37 PM

          f2p killed that new Tribes game. the amount of random fools it attracts doesn't make up for alienating everyone else. the game is worse when people can't switch to the necessary class because they haven't bought it or when people actively try to stack teams and prolong matches because that gives more XP.

          charging for items just don't work for competitive games like Starcraft / Quake. what would be best is limiting the time that a freeloader can play for without paying. they just need to find some way to enforce 1 account per user.

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 5:32 PM

            HiRez's utter inability to put the features that will make it successful and foster a large competitive community (spectator client, replays etc) are more to blame than f2p is. None of the pay items are must have and you can unlock just about anything with XP anyway.

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 4:35 PM

        F2P means I get to try a bunch of new games and realize that I don't like any of them. It's awesome. I don't buy games any more. I just play the F2P ones until I get bored and then move on to the next. For some games that's a couple hours. Others, a week or two. Occasionally I'll throw a few bucks at one that I like, but that's getting more and more rare.

        • reply
          September 24, 2012 4:39 PM

          You didnt even read the entire post. I didnt say F2P is shit, all I'm saying is it often has a negative gameplay/experience effect from the monetization "smells" it produces.

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 6:08 PM

            How do you know what I did or didn't read?

              • reply
                September 24, 2012 6:43 PM

                I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove here.

                I just stated how I view F2P in a F2P sub thread. I didn't say anything about you, your views, or anything.

                But continue herp derping it up here. You're on a roll.

                • reply
                  September 24, 2012 7:06 PM

                  Your post was a reply to mine. If yours had nothing to do with its parent (my) post, then you should of posted a reply to the main article. When you click reply, the semantic is that you are replying to the post you clicked on.

                  I am seriously starting to doubt the intelligence of F2P fans, Luckily for you, correlation does not imply causation.

                  • reply
                    September 24, 2012 11:12 PM

                    I suppose I'll just let this alone and you can have your pedantic front page article arguments with someone else.

          • reply
            September 24, 2012 6:52 PM

            I don't think you should lump all free-to-play games together like that. Certainly some f2p games implement the free to play aspects poorly and it affects the experience negatively. But it doesn't mean the entire model is broken or cancerous. If people do not like the model, the game will not be successful and developers will not emulate that model.

            • reply
              September 24, 2012 7:08 PM

              Yeah your right. Although I would replace "some" with "most". :)

        • reply
          September 25, 2012 3:44 PM

          So basically you follow the pattern of someone who mostly pirates all their games, not contributing to the health of the industry very much.

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 4:45 PM

        F2p gave us LoL, a game I sometimes even forget is f2p.

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 6:22 PM

        hey everyone let's all white knight for F2P!

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 4:27 PM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 5:16 PM

        this act of depravity brought to you by carls junior

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 6:08 PM

        That takes getting viruses from pop-up ads to a whole new level.

      • reply
        September 27, 2012 12:11 AM

        I wish someone would add a thumbs up or some feature of showing approval so that I can show how much I laughed

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 4:32 PM

      You know, I'd be okay with this as long as they allowed you to just buy SC2 outright for $60 and ignore whatever F2P grind mechanic they put in.

      I hate F2P gameplay.

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 4:51 PM

      Game companies evaluate all options for future development, news at 11

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 7:48 PM

        This is such a non-story yet it still gets a bunch of people going

        • reply
          September 25, 2012 6:51 AM

          F2P is still pretty polarizing. I've played a couple F2P games and I'm not sold on it. I know game companies have to make money to keep making games, but there is something about F2P games that just feels off.

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 5:18 PM

      why not instead of F2P, go "pretty damn cheap to play" instead? charge a quarter, or fifty cents, or some small amount, per game. you could buy token packages, maybe if you buy more at once you get some extra plays.

      worked ok for the local arcade when i was a kid.

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 5:20 PM

        [deleted]

        • reply
          September 24, 2012 7:42 PM

          the arcades didnt die out because the business model was no good, they died out because home consoles could meet or exceed the arcade experience. doesnt mean "pay per game" wouldnt work just fine in a different context.

        • reply
          September 24, 2012 10:47 PM

          Lol, I can't believe you actually think the reason arcades are not the go to place for kids is because of quarters.

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 6:53 PM

        This is basically the model in most of Asia. you pay for play time.

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 5:23 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 6:00 PM

      win 20 games, unlock tier 2 units.

    • reply
      September 24, 2012 9:57 PM

      I'd rather Diablo 3 go F2P.

      • reply
        September 24, 2012 10:47 PM

        would not be surprised if this happened tomorrow.

    • reply
      September 25, 2012 9:09 AM

      after what theyve done to the diablo series, if this happens too, im just done with blizzard. i dont know what happened, but within only 2-3 years theyve gone to complete crap

    • reply
      September 26, 2012 5:17 AM

      How to monetize it?? Easy. Skins. Vanity items. People eat that up. Why do you think CEs go for hundreds more on eBay?

Hello, Meet Lola