+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Lurker Games (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Diablo III (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-30.html)
+--- Thread: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) (/thread-13234.html)
Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Bolty - 08-08-2011
I found this link highly amusing.
http://daeity.blogspot.com/2011/08/blizzard-v-rmt.html
I'm still not "sold" on Diablo III, personally. I know many of you are excited for it, but I find myself leaning towards games like Guild Wars II and Torchlight II more. The whole Auction House fiasco turns me off, even though I understand Blizzard's actions from a corporate perspective.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Frag - 08-08-2011
Eh, just play Hardcore with the rest of us Bolt, then the AH doesn't matter.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - RTM - 08-08-2011
I can't help but think that even with RMT (maybe because of it?), Diablo III will be in a better economic situation than Diablo II where gold was more or less worthless and currency was based on either massively duped items or imaginary currency on a 3rd-party website. That's not a high standard I suppose, considering the experience Blizzard has racked up with WoW over the last 10 years.
I think ultimately it's going to have to be one of those things where you just wait and see how it all pans out.
I do find it funny that they took down their WoW page on gold buying right before the announcement though. More of a funny-sad than funny-haha.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Bolty - 08-08-2011
(08-08-2011, 02:03 PM)RTM Wrote: I can't help but think that even with RMT (maybe because of it?), Diablo III will be in a better economic situation than Diablo II where gold was more or less worthless and currency was based on either massively duped items or imaginary currency on a 3rd-party website.
Perhaps. Thing is, if Diablo II had an in-game auction house, then gold could theoretically mean something. Sure, it may get to the point where 10 million gold buys a hamburger, but essentially gold would be an arbitration enabler. That Stone of Jordan would trade for a million gold or something, and that million gold would in turn buy something else.
Not having participated in any of this Diablo II activity, though, I admit I'm ignorant of potential issues with that.
Basically, without an in-game Auction House, all such activity had to shift elsewhere - and real money wound up being exchanged. Blizzard has an active policy with WoW to include an in-game Auction House, followed by random enforcement discouraging the active trading of real money for gold and items. They chose not to do this with Diablo III.
The common statement about all of this is that it opens Blizzard up to legal issues. If you have an item that sells for $40 regularly - say, something truly rare and powerful - and Blizzard nerfs that item, they just cost you $40. Every single activity in the game will have an economic impact, and that really kills the "fun" for me, even if such "fun" was just an illusion to begin with. I could certainly sell my World of Warcraft account for decent cash, but I don't think about it that way. Having an in-game Auction House where things sell for real money draws me out of that immersion and reminds me that I'm playing a game that generates X amount of money per hour, even if such money is insignificant compared to my employment. It's not "wow, look at that killer rare item, it'll really boost my character and/or alt," but "wow, look at that killer rare item, I can make $10 off that." Erm...yeah.
To each their own, though. I don't begrudge people for still being excited about D3. Combined with the Activision "merge" with Blizzard leading directly to money-grabbing changes to WoW, I'm just really "meh" about D3 right now, and there are going to be many good alternatives to the game.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - --Pete - 08-08-2011
Hi,
I don't like RMT because, as Bolty said, it conflicts with the suspension of disbelief and the immersion that makes gaming fun for me. However, I don't think the real problem with game economies in general is RMT or the lack of an AH. The real problem with game economies is saturation. Once a character has a certain level of gear, he no longer wants anything at a lower level. Once the level of gear has maxed, there is no desire or need to replace it. In WoW, the big items in the AH were twinking gear, vanity items (white kittens, etc.), and consumables (or the materials for them). I don't think any game will have a good economy unless it incorporates durability reduction and eventual destruction of gear.
In addition to the poor economy, the lack of gear destruction will inevitably lead to cookie cutter builds. So far, I've seen no indication that D III will address this issue. So, I too will probably be looking for something else.
--Pete
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Kevin - 08-08-2011
(08-08-2011, 02:26 PM)Bolty Wrote:(08-08-2011, 02:03 PM)RTM Wrote: I can't help but think that even with RMT (maybe because of it?), Diablo III will be in a better economic situation than Diablo II where gold was more or less worthless and currency was based on either massively duped items or imaginary currency on a 3rd-party website.
Perhaps. Thing is, if Diablo II had an in-game auction house, then gold could theoretically mean something. Sure, it may get to the point where 10 million gold buys a hamburger, but essentially gold would be an arbitration enabler. That Stone of Jordan would trade for a million gold or something, and that million gold would in turn buy something else.
Not having participated in any of this Diablo II activity, though, I admit I'm ignorant of potential issues with that.
Basically, without an in-game Auction House, all such activity had to shift elsewhere - and real money wound up being exchanged. Blizzard has an active policy with WoW to include an in-game Auction House, followed by random enforcement discouraging the active trading of real money for gold and items. They chose not to do this with Diablo III.
The common statement about all of this is that it opens Blizzard up to legal issues. If you have an item that sells for $40 regularly - say, something truly rare and powerful - and Blizzard nerfs that item, they just cost you $40. Every single activity in the game will have an economic impact, and that really kills the "fun" for me, even if such "fun" was just an illusion to begin with. I could certainly sell my World of Warcraft account for decent cash, but I don't think about it that way. Having an in-game Auction House where things sell for real money draws me out of that immersion and reminds me that I'm playing a game that generates X amount of money per hour, even if such money is insignificant compared to my employment. It's not "wow, look at that killer rare item, it'll really boost my character and/or alt," but "wow, look at that killer rare item, I can make $10 off that." Erm...yeah.
To each their own, though. I don't begrudge people for still being excited about D3. Combined with the Activision "merge" with Blizzard leading directly to money-grabbing changes to WoW, I'm just really "meh" about D3 right now, and there are going to be many good alternatives to the game.
I haven't followed D3 development closely and my thoughts are still a little muddled on this.
I didn't get involved with the D2 economy much and a lot of that had to do with the fact that D2 was fundamentally a single player game that you could play with other people. If you were using "gimp" gear it didn't have a ton of effect on what you could do. The entire game on all difficulties could be completed solo with every class. I never joined a guild in D2 for similar reasons, it didn't really add much to the game, unlike WoW which as you may recall was something I brought up in the old discussions about forum layout back when WoW was in beta. Most D2 multiplayer was just a bunch of people playing solo in the same game, but wanting more people in game to up the drop levels, unless the game was arranged ahead of time and you were playing with folks you knew.
It's my understanding that D3 will again fundamentally be a single player game that you can play with other people. They have said that while they will have more PvP elements added that they aren't planning to balance for them at all (though I admit this is months old info that could have changed). The game is designed as PvE and while it sounds like co-op will be a bit more rewarding, that it still isn't required.
I think as you mentioned just having an Auction House in game will be a bigger stabilizing factor on the economy. Though again, the economy in D3 is not as important as the economy in WoW anyway. The importance of items to character development may or may not be more important than in WoW, but the impact of that on what is possible in the game will always be less. If you couldn't kill Diablo, if you needed better gear to do so, there would be places you could farm to get it. Or since the game generally got easier with more people you could get a friend to help you. D3 may not be designed that way, but I suspect that it is.
I also think you are right that there will be some people out there that will get pissed about a patch or something else destroying real world money for them. I can see litigation over it. I can see your and others' concerns about how it will impact your mentality on the game, but for me that isn't an issue. I'm more concerned about the general direction. As mentioned Blizzard in general has been going down a path that doesn't excite me.
Maybe my information is just out of date. But Torchlight II with built in mod support, peer-to-peer multiplay, and other features actually is looking more like the spiritual successor to Diablo II to me. Though battle.net was one of the reasons for D2's success and I'm not sure Torchlight is going to have anything like that. As you also mention there will be other alternatives.
I didn't buy Starcraft 2, I did manage to borrow a copy and played through the single player missions, and while they did a good job to keep it feel like Starcraft something was just not there, it felt incomplete because there was only the one campaign, and it wasn't done that much better than what War3 had for all of it's campaigns. It felt like milking it for more money was the only reason to not have more single player content and I had no desire to actually pay for it.
They'll make their money on D3, I might still get it, but it is by no means the only game in town anymore.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Ell_man - 08-08-2011
I personally don't care if other people are buying/selling items for real money. In fact, I think if more people are invovled in selling gold they themselves earn this lowers the price of gold and makes spamming, account stealing and botting less profitable. If they're buying, it makes it more profitable. So I will revise my opinion. Please sell gold but don't but it! Or blizzard, please make "peaceful" ways of getting gold(farming) more advantageous than the "warlike" methods of account stealing, duping, etc.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Layil - 08-09-2011
But... it's Diablo! Gonna buy it anyway
I have my reservations about D3 like many of you and there will be a ton other great games (better games maybe?!) coming out soon that will compete for my time. Yet even though I don't agree with all these new features of the game, I don't think I'll pass up the opportunity to romp through pseudo-randomly generated dungeons with old co-op buddies in the newest version of a classic game.
As for the Auction House, it won't bother me at all. I prefer to find items myself and don't worry about trading. If I find some uber loot and no one in my party wants it... it'll probably go to the in-game shop-keeper
One thing that I do think is kind of lame that no one mentioned yet (maybe it's a minor thing...), is that Blizzard is going to let players move their items freely between their characters via a community stash. In other words, it'll now be legit to twink your own characters. Bleh.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - DeeBye - 08-09-2011
(08-09-2011, 03:07 AM)Layil Wrote: But... it's Diablo! Gonna buy it anyway
Yes. YES.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - nobbie - 08-10-2011
I think the RMT AH thing is overrated (by the critics). First, trading for real money will happen anyway, and with the AH Blizzard knows exactly where the money flows and can therefore ban price monopolies/cartels (china farmers) if necessary. Second, in the beginning everyone will probably try to make some cash from items, but they won't sell in most cases. In just a couple of months this whole RMT thing will be back to a normal state and regular trading (for gold) will take place in most cases.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Concillian - 08-10-2011
(08-08-2011, 07:22 PM)--Pete Wrote: Hi,
I don't like RMT because, as Bolty said, it conflicts with the suspension of disbelief and the immersion that makes gaming fun for me. However, I don't think the real problem with game economies in general is RMT or the lack of an AH. The real problem with game economies is saturation. Once a character has a certain level of gear, he no longer wants anything at a lower level. Once the level of gear has maxed, there is no desire or need to replace it. In WoW, the big items in the AH were twinking gear, vanity items (white kittens, etc.), and consumables (or the materials for them). I don't think any game will have a good economy unless it incorporates durability reduction and eventual destruction of gear.
A big part of Diablo II was building new characters, and gear that was good at low to mid level always had some value didn't it? Twinking items, I guess.
Items that were good, but still reasonably common. They weren't useless, but they weren't unobtainable either. Twitchthroe, for example, had it's uses, and was something you had a reasonable chance of getting ahold of, unlike something like Windforce or even an SoJ. While it wasn't coveted like the other two, it's wasn't completely worthless either, was it?
I guess I may as well be talking out my ass, since I didn't really do much item trading in Diablo II. I mostly used what I found, farmed, or gambled myself.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Crusader - 08-11-2011
I think the debate is making elephants from mice and nothing but a horrible overreaction. I think the number of players using the RMT AH will be limited. Blizzard can't beat gold farmers, so this is a good way to take the market away from them. I hardly think they'll be in it for the cold, hard cash.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Zippyy - 08-11-2011
I have an overwhelming suspicion that the fears of the $AH breaking immersion won't be a problem. Once you're in the game, I have every confidence that it will be as immersive and addictive as every other Blizzard title has been. If you're not an $AH user, it will never cross your mind.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Zarathustra - 08-12-2011
I know what the RMAH will be for me. I'll seldom, if ever, purchase any items at all. However, I think back to D2 and the HUGE number of uniques I vendored. Or perfect gems, runes I spent on crafting just to see the finished item; that stuff all adds up.
I foresee myself being slightly less cavalier with my surplus goods, and instead selling them. I'll call it a stipend for playing the game.
Ooo... I've got it. We need to start a thread where lurkers purchase their beverage of choice using only RMAH profits, then post a picture holding said beverage.
"Hey Blizzard, thanks for the drink!"
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - DeeBye - 08-12-2011
http://i.imgur.com/dbm0T.jpg
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Selby - 08-13-2011
While I dislike the RMAH aspects of it... honestly it isn't enough to make me stop buying or playing the game. Just like WoW, UO, EQ, etc, the real money aspect will exist. I choose not to participate in it and most likely won't even interact with many other people anyways. *MY* main gripe with D3 is that they are planning on making it impossible to play on a computer without an internet connection. THAT is something that will keep me from buying the game, as when I travel I don't always have access to stable internet and playing Diablo II was something I enjoyed doing without having to worry about internet lagdeath in my *single player* games...
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Roland - 08-16-2011
I'm reserving judgment on the impact $AH will have on my enjoyment of the game. However, I do feel that D3 has turned into a beast entirely unlike what most of us wanted it to be, and as such I have far bigger concerns about the game as a whole - the AH is the least of my concerns.
Honestly, I will buy it - probably the CE, probably on the day it comes out, knowing full well it will probably be something I regret a little (shades of SC2). I'm honest with myself about that, and I suppose one of the biggest reasons I'll be buying it is closure. The thing that always drew me deep into Diablo was the background story (laugh at that if you must). The gameplay was addictive, but it was the story that made it worthwhile. I'm not sure they'll have incorporated enough of the former for me to overlook the glaring faults in the latter. It's something I want to find out, though, so I'll be buying it, and playing it - until I no longer find enjoyment in it.
If I stood by my principles more I wouldn't be buying it, nor would I have bought SC2 (at least I've held my ground on WoW). I don't think the Blizzard of today knows the first thing about what created it all those years ago, and that's a very sad thing. Like many others, I will be looking to Torchlight II (although Torchlight did not "wow" me as it did so many others, and Guild Wars put me off hugely with their BS about unlocking PvP via PvE - Torchlight was fun, but not immersive, and ultimately more pointless than enjoyable for me, while Guild Wars just had terribly boring PvE content that made the grind into PvP unbearable). Grim Dawn is another I've got my eye on, a spiritual successor to Titan Quest (another I never really got into, probably because of a lack of adequate story to drive the Diablo-esque gameplay, at least for me).
I'm sure the economy will be plagued by the usual mishaps that occur in these situations (it's too much to ask that every in-game economy live up to the high standard set by EVE Online), but I'm going to do my best to avoid it altogether. I just hope there's enough meat to the story to immerse me as it has done in games past. Otherwise the exercise will be boil down to a quick playthrough before being shelved indefinitely.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - vor_lord - 08-16-2011
(08-16-2011, 04:01 AM)Roland Wrote: If I stood by my principles more I wouldn't be buying it, nor would I have bought SC2 (at least I've held my ground on WoW).
What principles are those? Honestly, I'm confused by the hate (I had the same problem with everyone who had to rant about how awful D2 was). Did Diablo cure cancer or something? Did I miss it back in the 90s, and cancer's only come back because Blizzard has evolved into something different?
Games are games, and they are a business. They are in the business of entertainment for money. Diablo 2 and WoW (and probably SC2, never played it) all provided entertainment for lots of people, and money for Blizzard. If you don't like them for whatever reason (story, gameplay, privacy, artwork, subscription, etc.) don't buy them. Don't play them.
I'm all for sticking to your principles. I'm just unclear as to this golden age where the original Blizzard employees worked for free or something...
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Roland - 08-16-2011
At what point did I say Blizzard worked for free? It's fine that you don't understand my position, but please don't try to insinuate things that aren't there.
My "principles" with regard to Blizzard's games of late are that their design decisions do not mesh with what I have come to expect from Blizzard based upon their past games. In essence, they've been taking steps backwards in many key areas, rather than forwards. As such, I'm torn between the decision to support a company I largely disagree with in terms of design decisions, and striving to find enjoyment through gaming - regardless of the company behind it. I'm cynically optimistic about Diablo III - not that I think it will be the Holy Grail of the Diablo franchise, but that there will be enough good to outweigh the bad (at least enough for me to get my money's worth out of the game). I'd probably still be playing Diablo II if not for the (IMHO) detrimental changes they've made in "recent" patches. I suppose one of the best examples I can give is sacrificing D2 Classic in favor of Lord of Destruction. From that point on it was a series of negative changes, oftentimes interspersed with some positives. Butchering the functionality of Firewall and Blaze for the sake of "performance" on "legacy" systems, when the game itself was already in the "legacy" stage of its lifetime, is another great example.
If these sorts of design decisions (and, perhaps more importantly, the reasoning behind them) don't bother you then I cannot expect you to "understand the hate". That does not make the "hate" any less valid, just as I do not condemn you for being vehemently excited about Diablo III. To hear a lead designed of a game company say such things as "We couldn't balance skill attributes, so we're taking them out" with a straight face, and not even have a very convincing argument as to WHY they felt it was better to do so rather than pursue an alternate course, is galling to me. Ditto with regards to "no weapon switching, because D2 players found it too confusing". There are numerous other examples. Even the Rune system, which I am genuinely intrigued by and most looking forward to, is potentially going to be scrapped because they can't make up their minds on how best to implement it. In essence, they keep chirping the same Blizzard motto of "It's not done until it's done, and it's not done until we've made the best game we can," but the entire meaning behind that phrase is lost when they sacrifice quality gameplay for lack of ability to implement it.
My biggest problem with buying D3 (and this applies only to me) is that I would actively be supporting a gaming company I no longer feel has my best interests, as a gamer, in mind. I remember the prophetic words of Max Schaefer when asked if they (Blizzard) knew better than their players what makes a good game (or something to that effect), and his answer was an astounding "Yes." The arrogance, when backed by seeming laziness and/or incompetence, flies in the face of what ANY company should be striving for - whether it's in game design, automotive service, anything.
It may be said that I am being too critical (though there are far more people who share views similar to my own and you might think), but you should also keep in mind that I'm saying this about a company I once regarded with the utmost of respect. I just feel they've not grown in a positive way throughout the years. It's akin to watching a beloved friend start hanging with the "wrong crowd", making decisions that negatively impact their life despite them showing greater wisdom in the past than they are exercising in the present.
As I said, I'm still going to buy Diablo III, because I see potential for an enjoyable game, and I do not feel SO strongly against Blizzard that I'm going to sacrifice my own potential enjoyment just to state a principle. The Blizzard of today is an entirely different beast than it was when Diablo came out, and when Diablo II came out. Whether that's a good thing or not, overall, remains to be seen. I intend to give Diablo III a chance, because it's a franchise I love and some of the gameplay looks to be rather enjoyable. I don't have to be supportive of the company behind the game, however, especially when everything about them seems to indicate they value profit over integrity.
RE: Blizzard vs. Real Money Trading (RMT) - Quark - 08-16-2011
(08-16-2011, 05:13 AM)Roland Wrote: I remember the prophetic words of Max Schaefer when asked if they (Blizzard) knew better than their players what makes a good game (or something to that effect), and his answer was an astounding "Yes."
I hope you're not planning on buying Torchlight 2 if this offends you!