Jodah said:
Well, this is going to create the exact situations I have said will be the downfall of gaming. The moment real life money has a direct impact on game balance is the moment gaming goes downhill. Good items are going to end up on the RMAH for the most part and the in game currency one will have crap.
This, lots of this.
You know, throw back to old school dungeons and dragons, it was not unheard of for a group of friends to throw down some cash on a new book full of interesting loot for their characters, essentially buying more options and such to draw from. BUT - they still played the game to acquire the loot. It wasn't like "well Johnny bought the book, so he gets the +5 sword of amazazing".
This spend to win concept is a complete turn off to me from the concept of persistent, progressive gaming. Worse still is when a game insists on coupling spend to win with PVP. There may be some out there that just don't care, but I cannot find enjoyment in a pvp game that boils down to who spent the most money on the game. And as market forces continue to drive for RMT in persistent games, it makes me more and more pushed towards games that have little to no persistent connection between one game and the next, such that I can start a game on even footing without a necessary massive investment of time and/or money.
And yea, the online only game: very shady. Thing is Blizzard/activision probably won't go under anytime soon: but if they do you are 100% f'ed. Hellgate london was a perfect example. The game developer flagship studios went under, and all the folks purchasing the game went dark for 2 years when the servers shut down. Now, adding insult to injury, their IP has been grabbed by Hanbitsoft, who is charging them AGAIN for the second half of the game, unlocks of basic features, etc.
In the end, I might play this if enough of my friends hop on the bandwagon, because principles aside I enjoy spending gaming time with my friends, but I'm not all that excited about the game given recent news.