Starcraft 2 Multiplayer May Become Free-To-Play

[Bindal]

Overall, there are three ways I see this being work.
First the micropayment with non-gameplay elements like skins, maybe avatars and similar stuff.
Second would be ad-based version. That would make the game entirely free.

Third would be to buy access. Having a basic version entirely free, where you can play only with people having the basic free version, but you can buy access to the stand-alone-addon and its units and play with people having those.
It would, in the end, create three to four groups:
1 - Free to Play Only
2 - Original Starcraft 2
3 - HotS Starcraft 2
4 - LotV Starcraft 2

1 and 2 might be the same list, even.
Of course, that would require the game to become compatible with the other versions, which might not be easy to do, maybe even downright impossible.
Also, the question is what about people, who bought the retails? Well, that they gain access to their own, respective list is obvious, maybe even too all lists.
And if they combine this with the first "selling skins", then maybe a retailer gets also 1/3 of all skins (owning all three would give you all skins avaible, obviously. Maybe depending on the game, you get skins for a specific faction.)


Well, I didn't think that through entirely, but the idea itself sounds great regardless.

 

[SextusMaximus]

What a waste of my 40 quid then.

Also:

Free-to-play and RTS doesn't really mix. If you want an example, see Company of Heroes Online.

Opinion about idea x; almost entirely different example than idea x.

 

[Tiamattt]

Well it's not like Terrans/Protoss don't only use like half the available units right now or anything.....

 

[Dandark]

I have never tried Starcraft, I count myself as a casual RTS fan but have never played it.

I guess I may try it if it goes F2P since I hear so much about it but the multiplayer doesn't look too fun......I may not even bother trying it, I don't really want to get a Blizzard game, they are a pretty crappy publisher right now.


Does anyone think the move to F2P will bring more people in? I can't see it as more than them hoping to monetize the game further.

 

[daibakuha]

if they want to lower the barrier to entry they could try loweing the price a bit more, no reason SC2 should be as expensive as it is now.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Meh as someone who hates people I never cared about the VS aspect of Starcraft anyways as long as the single player missions are as good as they were in the terran campaign I don't care what else they do.

 

[snekadid]

Sooo... I can have a Zerg rush with top hats?
Really, I think this is going to be difficult to monetize for them, even more in a way the players like as well.

This post is silly, everyone knows zerglings wear sombreros....

 

[ExtraDebit]

I haven't touch SC2 multiplayer for months, I only occasionally go in to play a game of desert strike. No amount of free to play is going to get me back to their multiplayer.

 

[Wackymon]

Starcraft 2, will soon become Starhat 2, I predict.
A repeat of TF2, I predict, maybe. Though, after sifting through the comments, we're going to get ads. Easy, quick, clever, fast, un-harmful.

 

[KingWein22]

Haven't they done a Warcraft 2: Battle.net Edition? Why not make a Starcraft 2: Battle.net Edition? Save a lot of headaches, honestly. Make it about $15-25 USD.

 

[RJ 17]

Wait wait wait...I haven't played SC II since I've got a beef with Blizzard. Does this mean that it's multiplayer is current subscription based? Or is this applying only to entrance fees for tournaments and stuff? I is confused...

If it really is currently subscription-based to play the multiplayer, it's just further evidence for my folder that they just wanted to milk this game for as much money as they possibly could.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

Wait wait wait...I haven't played SC II since I've got a beef with Blizzard. Does this mean that it's multiplayer is current subscription based? Or is this applying only to entrance fees for tournaments and stuff? I is confused...

If it really is currently subscription-based to play the multiplayer, it's just further evidence for my folder that they just wanted to milk this game for as much money as they possibly could.

I'm not sure how you garnered that Idea from the OP...

No, but to play the game you have to buy it, which means it isn't free to play or F2P.

they are thinking of rebuilding the multiplayer component into a F2P model to encourage growth in it as an esport.

 

[RJ 17]

Wait wait wait...I haven't played SC II since I've got a beef with Blizzard. Does this mean that it's multiplayer is current subscription based? Or is this applying only to entrance fees for tournaments and stuff? I is confused...

If it really is currently subscription-based to play the multiplayer, it's just further evidence for my folder that they just wanted to milk this game for as much money as they possibly could.

I'm not sure how you garnered that Idea from the OP...

they are thinking of rebuilding the multiplayer component into a F2P model to encourage growth in it as an esport.

Headline: "Starcraft 2 Multiplayer May Become Free-to-Play."
Kinda implies that it isn't already free to play, doesn't it? When dealing with an RTS, I believe you're buying the campaign and the multiplayer is free. This is where my confusion came from. The entire article is a bit confusing in this regards, especially when you consider this line:

At the moment, Starcraft 2 already has a "Starter Edition" that allows people to try out a handful of multiplayer maps for free, but only as a Terran.

For someone who knows nothing about the game - i.e. myself - this could imply a number of different things, including "You bought the game, now you have to pay to get the full multiplayer package. Until then you can dick around with this demo package."

Yes, my question may have seemed silly to you, but can you at least understand where it came from now?

 

[Agente L]

Maybe selling cosmetics items? New skins for units, new voices, etc? humm...

That's a really good question. How to monetize a F2P RTS.

 

[Rayne870]

I don't understand "gamers" that think they should be able to play games without having to pay money for them, especially if they are looking to be "esports" stars.

Brb looking for a free guitar and music lessons so I can be a rockstar, everyone else can buy stickers for their guitar to support me.

 

[omicron1]

Things to monetize in an RTS, without going down the horrid C&C4 route:
* Ranked matches. Let players buy tokens to compete above a certain number of matches per day/week/year/total.
* Customization options. Even if it's as simple as monetizing the color scheme, some players will pay to stand out.
* C&C Generals-style subfactions. With the idea being less "buy units" and more "buy variety", as long as nothing is overpowered there is ample room in a competitive RTS for loadout packs and other monetarily-gated elements.
* Singleplayer. Extra campaigns, small side stories, and stuff like that.
* (on that note) Extra scenarios. Harder to justify with the existence of the map editor, but having one professionally-designed level/gameplay chunk per week available at a sub-$1 price point would be awfully tempting.

The one thing you can't do is the same thing you can't do in an MMO without losing the spark that makes the system work: pay to win. Which, unfortunately, is by far the easiest thing to monetize.

As for Starcraft 2? I'll wait and see. Haven't played the main game since it came out, anyway.