Diablo® III

How will Diablo 3 servers be funded?

Posts: 651
Som, you cannot seriously be worried about Blizzard being able to support their servers, for Christs sake DIABLO ONE SERVERS ARE STILL UP!
Reply Quote
Posts: 659
Battle.net servers have been free since Diablo 1... and they are running and still run D1, D2, SC1, SC2, War3.

I don't see this being an issue. I think there's a vast difference in running a live, constantly-updating server for 10,000 moving, interacting characters logged in simultaneously, and a server that houses a ton of players and allows people to host 1-to-8 person games...
Reply Quote
60 Undead Warlock
340
Posts: 33
i believe the infrastructure side of wow is 135k a month.. which i am not sure of but it is a figure i have seen..thats 10k subs of their 11 million subs

if only 1 million people play the game an average 2 dollars in rmah fees a month..there is plenty of server upkeep money


It just seems like an odd way to run a business. Why role out a new product that has a net drain on the bottom line just because one of your other products is profitable enough to support it? In that case I'm sure your shareholders would rather you have not rolled it out in the first place.

Again, I'm sure Blizzard has some longer term business goals in mind for Diablo 3 that will make it all worthwhile financially, we just haven't been informed of those plans yet.
Reply Quote
100 Troll Mage
14135
Posts: 943
Since Diablo 3 is basically a MMO on the infrastructure side, won't Blizzard be losing money in the long run with no monthly fees? The $60 initial game cost will no doubt go to recouping the decade long development costs and I highly doubt they will be generating enough revenue from the RMAH to pay the bandwidth and server bills every month.

Might we see some micro transaction vanity items down the road? I'm sure Blizzard has this all worked out but I can't see how it's feasible as an outsider.


Wait, what? What are you talking about? How is Diablo 3 going to be anything like an MMO? Do you even understand how servers work?

If you're going to question how D3 servers are paid for you have to question how SC2 servers are paid for as well, because they work exactly the same way. Yet SC2 doesn't seem to have issues. Have you ever been in an SC2 game and lost your connection to B.net? Why don't you get disconnected like in WoW?

Answer: it's a peer-to-peer system. Blizzard isn't actually hosting a single game, they only host the indexing service that lets you find other games. B.net is like an address book publisher, they pay for the book that tells you where someone lives, but they don't pay the rent. When you host a custom game in SC2, you are hosting that game. Why do you think when one person lags it stalls everyone? That doesn't happen in WoW because it is one client connecting to a server parallel to many others. In peer-to-peer everyone is connected to each other in a web. B.net only retrieves a list of games and keeps your friends list updated, once you enter the lobby B.net is no longer involved.

Guild Wars works the same way. It's only a dedicated server (like an MMO) in towns, where combat is disabled. When you enter the field or an arena, the game switches to peer-to-peer mode and connects directly to your party. At that point the game is being supported by the client, and only sends data back to the main server when your character progresses, like picking up gold or gaining exp. It's very light on bandwidth, but that's why you can only see your own party in the field. In fact, the server architecture for Guild Wars is actually based on battle.net, and some of the guys that worked on the original b.net were part of that team. In WoW and most MMOs everything you do has to be sent to the server, including movement and skill use, and that takes a TON of bandwidth, but it's the only way to make it possible for so many people to exist in one instance. A peer-to-peer network couldn't support something like a WoW continent, or even a capital, but it can definitely support less than 16 people.

Or maybe you never played SC2, in which case shame on you. It's awesome.

It just seems like an odd way to run a business. Why role out a new product that has a net drain on the bottom line just because one of your other products is profitable enough to support it? In that case I'm sure your shareholders would rather you have not rolled it out in the first place.

Again, I'm sure Blizzard has some longer term business goals in mind for Diablo 3 that will make it all worthwhile financially, we just haven't been informed of those plans yet.


No, you're just overestimating the costs of B.net. Even if WoW and Diablo had the same number of concurrent players, Diablo wouldn't even cost half what WoW would to maintain. The infrastructure is totally different.
Edited by Dreyfuss on 9/22/2011 6:04 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 138
Battle.net servers have been free since Diablo 1... and they are running and still run D1, D2, SC1, SC2, War3.

I don't see this being an issue. I think there's a vast difference in running a live, constantly-updating server for 10,000 moving, interacting characters logged in simultaneously, and a server that houses a ton of players and allows people to host 1-to-8 person games...


I'm going to have to go with this for my answer too. I really don't know anything about how the servers handle their loads but running 1-4 person games can't be nearly as taxing as 10,000 people simultaneously. On top of that Blizzard makes enough money, I don't think they are worried. The number of servers they need are directly proportional to the number of people that buy the game.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,369
Was about to say; RMAH, the box price and expansions will all help fund Diablo.

Let's say theoretically on average 1 million people put up one item a day. Let's say the flat rate that Blizzard takes is .10 cents. Simple math suggests around $100,000.00 per day.

Even pulling as small as a number as .10 cent adds up really quickly.
Reply Quote
85 Draenei Mage
5100
Posts: 998
$60 x 10,000,000 copies sold(world wide) = $600,000,000. That might be enough to run servers for a while....
Reply Quote
100 Troll Mage
14135
Posts: 943
Battle.net servers have been free since Diablo 1... and they are running and still run D1, D2, SC1, SC2, War3.

I don't see this being an issue. I think there's a vast difference in running a live, constantly-updating server for 10,000 moving, interacting characters logged in simultaneously, and a server that houses a ton of players and allows people to host 1-to-8 person games...


I'm going to have to go with this for my answer too. I really don't know anything about how the servers handle their loads but running 1-4 person games can't be nearly as taxing as 10,000 people simultaneously. On top of that Blizzard makes enough money, I don't think they are worried. The number of servers they need are directly proportional to the number of people that buy the game.


Especially since they don't actually host the games, the players do. They only get updates trickled out to their servers maybe once every 2-3 seconds on average to keep character progression up to date. Just stuff like gold, loot, exp, and skill changes. Compare that to having to update your character's position, orientation, movement, and skill usage, on top of those other things, over 30 times per second and you can see the difference in server load.
Edited by Dreyfuss on 9/22/2011 6:09 AM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Worgen Hunter
AEC
3435
Posts: 1,092
09/22/2011 05:47 AMPosted by Breyna
How did they manage it with Diablo 2? I doubt the infrastructure for that was a slouch, though might not be as big as what they're doing with D3.
They had ad space.
Reply Quote
60 Undead Warlock
340
Posts: 33

Especially since they don't actually host the games, the players do. They only get updates trickled out to their servers maybe once every 2-3 seconds on average to keep character progression up to date. Just stuff like gold, loot, exp, and skill changes. Compare that to having to update your character's position, orientation, movement, and skill usage, on top of those other things, over 30 times per second and you can see the difference in server load.


I think you're making a pretty big assumption that battle.net will just be a matchmaking service and players will be hosting the games themselves. I thought the whole point of not offering single player was to take all the power away from the client and let the server handle everything.

Reply Quote
Diablo Classic servers are still up and running.
Reply Quote
100 Tauren Druid
15345
Posts: 760
As others have said. The great thing about blizzard is that they are not like EA, You can still go online and play any of their games that use bnet. including diablo1
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,700
09/22/2011 05:47 AMPosted by Breyna
How did they manage it with Diablo 2? I doubt the infrastructure for that was a slouch, though might not be as big as what they're doing with D3.


Mostly advertisements on battle.net.
Reply Quote
Posts: 258
i think WoW pretty much covers them
but if there was a choice of like donating money to keep the servers running for D3 or SC2 id definately be up for that. not that they need it or anythin. just to show appreciation, u kno like tippin, im all for tippin
Reply Quote
Posts: 883
RMAH is basically a genius ponzi scheme, i guarantee you it will change gaming forever.

genius

evil

but genius
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]