Diablo III Brings Global Play to Battle.net
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
I guess the real money auction house will only be used for really high level / rare stuff that's worth the listing fee. 15% is ridiculous though. I was wondering how they planned on making a profit on this, so I guess that's how.Hammeroj said:
In any case, imo real money transactions should be confined to free-to-play games.
I've never considered Blizzard greedy in the past though, compared to other dev/publishers. I mean, they don't really rip you off on DLC, and all of the expansions to their games have a lot of material.
*shrugs*
I'm not desire to play with people i can't understand anyway so i doubt I'd be server hopping
I'm not desire to play with people i can't understand anyway so i doubt I'd be server hopping
Yeah those Limey Brits, who can understand them spewing out what they call "english".Lunar Templar said:
The press release I saw yesterday on Ars [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/05/blizzard-to-take-up-to-15-percent-of-diablo-iii-real-money-auction-house-sales.ars] said that you could play globally with your character but you will only have access to your regions auction house. So I on the American server and can pop into a game hosted on the European server with my cousin in Berlin but I would still only have access to the American auction house.
Only if I would want to deal on the European auction house would I need to start new characters on those servers.
Only if I would want to deal on the European auction house would I need to start new characters on those servers.
I'm no expert either, but it sounds like, from what he told me, that he was going to do it within servers. As in, treating it like a real stock market (doing research on value fluctuations, and constantly swapping items in and out of the auction house). Then using said revenue to buy more items, and so forth. Of course trading is always risky business, but he's pretty experienced since he makes money in real life. Also of course, there will be the obligatory super MF-loaded character scavenging around like a tool.Eric the Orange said:
Personally it's all greek to me. I'm super anti-balsy with my money. *holds tightly*
that, and i dunno anyone over there, only out of country friend i have is in New Zealand.Eric the Orange said:
but as a general rule, i don't go where they don't speak the language i do. makes communication some what less a hassle.
That was BS in itself. Blizzard had already established its net infrastructure with WoW. How they couldn't piggyback on that for their other games is a question they aren't going to answer, because they can do it.Hammeroj said:
This bit is just one more reason for me to not touch Diablo 3, because, regardless of the limitations that are so-called being imposed on international playing, cashiered players will still find a way to overcome them and screw everyone else over.
If you are curious why this is a problem, then you should ask people why the Yankees win so many World Series games.
Thats pretty normal for auction houses. Most real life auctions charge a lotting fee and take a commission. The reason for the lotting fees in real life auctions, and I suspect in game as well, is keep the real junk out.Spud of Doom said:
#1 post right here.Hammeroj said:
I opened the article, thinking, "ooh, they're going to have true international gaming!" Then the third paragraph showed up, and "welp, good job on not changing a damn thing from D2."
More and more reason to not care what Blizzard does. :/
Or, perhaps more likely, that people think they're getting value for their money. It's one thing to feel like you're being ripped off - that you're not getting what you paid for - and another to feel like you're paying for a premium service.Hammeroj said:
If I pay $5 for a hot dog, and it's undercooked and comes with a packet of ketchup, I'm going to feel ripped off. If I pay $10 for a hot dog, and it's juicy and seared to perfection with a ton of toppings, I'm going to feel like I got my money's worth. Is it, objectively, worth $10? Maybe not. But the psychological factor can't be underestimated.
People are "giving them more slack than they deserve" because they don't feel like they're getting ripped off, not because it's some sort of insidious scheme to lay low and fly under the radar.Hammeroj said:
If some schmuck wants to pay $25 for a cosmetic WoW pet that doesn't do anything that something you can get in-game doesn't do just as well, that's his business. It's not like where, if you don't buy the $15 map pack, you have fewer people to play with/against in a Battlefield or COD, and it's not like if you don't buy the $10 extra campaign you don't get the whole Fallout 3 or Mass Effect story. That's stuff that people DO get pissed at, because not buying it negatively impacts their game experience, which I would consider objectively more "greedy" than offering something completely cosmetic that people would be willing to buy.
At least, that's how I rationalize buying all those skins in League of Legends
Well, WoW is probably a bad example for either of us to focus on just because there is *so much to do* in that game, that I don't think anybody would be able to accomplish it all unless they've been playing from the beginning and throwing their life away to Azeroth. But this isn't content in the game, dude, it's the simple way your mount looks or the little non-combat pet you have running around with you at all times. If Blizzard starts locking content to the newest raid to people who have the sparkle-pony, then that's problematic. But... it's purely aesthetic, so I can't agree with you that it's barring you from acquiring anything in the game.Hammeroj said:I wouldn't say it's some sort of insidious scheme, it's just being smart about approaching the teets of a milkable franchise. I'd say people in general are just way too plain old, let's say simple and ignorant, to give Blizzard shit. The issues with their business practices mostly aren't as cut and dry as ridiculously overpriced, on-disc DLC, locked player characters, yearly sequels or things to that extent. Although some are, like region locking, but those aren't as big.John Funk said:People are "giving them more slack than they deserve" because they don't feel like they're getting ripped off, not because it's some sort of insidious scheme to lay low and fly under the radar.
If some schmuck wants to pay $25 for a cosmetic WoW pet that doesn't do anything that something you can get in-game doesn't do just as well, that's his business. It's not like where, if you don't buy the $15 map pack, you have fewer people to play with/against in a Battlefield or COD, and it's not like if you don't buy the $10 extra campaign you don't get the whole Fallout 3 or Mass Effect story. That's stuff that people DO get pissed at, because not buying it negatively impacts their game experience, which I would consider objectively more "greedy" than offering something completely cosmetic that people would be willing to buy.
At least, that's how I rationalize buying all those skins in League of Legends
I have a problem with not being able to get everything within the game without paying extra. Especially when the game is full priced. Especially when the game requires monthly payments. The idea of microtransactions[footnote]The expression sounds weird when talking about prices like 25 bucks[/footnote] of any sort in a game that already sucks hundreds of dollars out of people pisses me off. It's not as egregious a move as your examples are to be sure[footnote]Although, on second thought, maybe it's more insidious to have people pay hundreds of bucks and still not have everything.[/footnote], but it's still a move motivated purely by greed, and as such, I find it hard to applause. As should everyone.
The bigger and sadder point I was getting at (though it's probably not apparent) was that at this point Blizzard gets praised - literally - for making greedy moves. Not even what people perceive to be positive effects of those moves, like the generally short-sighted "I think that's a nice premium feature to have there because..." remarks, but "That'll make Blizzard some more money. Good on them.". Blizzard is the definition of a successful wolf in sheep's clothing case.
League of Legends isn't an apt analogy because the game is free.
Also, to be honest, there's probably a lot more in-game prestige in having the mounts/pets from doing the hard achievements, etc, than just shelling out money.
I would ALSO argue - and have in the past - that a good subscription-based MMO, whether WoW, TOR or Tera is actually a pretty damn good value for your buck, so the idea that it's "sucking hundreds of dollars out of people" doesn't ring true with me. You get dozens of hours of playtime out of your $15 a month, which is a lot more than you get in other games - but that's kind of a flaw of the genre, so we won't get into it.
A move can be a good idea and warrant praise AND still be what some would perceive as "greedy." For instance, I've never been as against the in-game real-money auction house in D3 because I think it's a great way to beat the third-party RMT black market at its own game. I thought it was a great idea when CCP introduced PLEX and undercut the black market that way, and I think it's a smart idea here, too. People would be buying and selling in-game items for real money no matter what (they certainly did in D2), and rather than having the cash go to some international company which pays a Chinese college student to farm all night while he crams, it goes to someone else playing the game.
Do I understand why some people are opposed to the RMT Auctions? Of course I do. Do I see why some people think it's greedy? Of course I do that, too. That doesn't mean that I don't - or can't - think that it's a good idea on its own merits.