chucat
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by chucat on Aug 1, 2011 12:52:07 GMT -5
The auction house is actually a good thing, I'd say as people who really want to either purchase or sell something (I never bothered) wouldn't have to do it half-illegal on ebay anymore. Why not let them have some degree of comfort? Because RMT transactions harm a game's economy, made all the worse in games like Diablo, where half the point of the game is to find rare items. My fear is that given the rarity of many items in Diablo 2, similar rarity levels plus a legitimized player-to-player RMT system will create a "pay to win" scenario, where the only way to acquire the game's best items is to spend $5 for the latest version of the Stone of Jordan or whatever other item it is you want. Who is going to trade these items normally (for other items or in-game currency) when they can get real money? I fear that this system is going to create a scenario where making a top-tier character will all but require RMT transactions. 1. You're going to be doing hundreds if not thousands of runs to get the items, runes, gems etc that you need by just playing solo, the odds of a Zod Rune dropping in Diablo 2 are laughably high at best and pretty much winning the lottery at worst. 2. People never traded ingame for two reasons anyway: a) The items you want and the items I want won't always mesh, if only, instead of attempting to barter with unwanted goods, there was some sort of...currency we could both use. b) However, Gold was borderline useless after a while, largely due to inflation and a lack of cash sinks. 3. Making a top tier character required using real money in Diablo 2 anyway, whether through selling your items for forum gold and then buying the items you wanted, or just buying forum gold with real money and buying the items you wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Aug 1, 2011 13:06:00 GMT -5
The auction house is actually a good thing, I'd say as people who really want to either purchase or sell something (I never bothered) wouldn't have to do it half-illegal on ebay anymore. Why not let them have some degree of comfort? Because RMT transactions harm a game's economy, made all the worse in games like Diablo, where half the point of the game is to find rare items. My fear is that given the rarity of many items in Diablo 2, similar rarity levels plus a legitimized player-to-player RMT system will create a "pay to win" scenario, where the only way to acquire the game's best items is to spend $5 for the latest version of the Stone of Jordan or whatever other item it is you want. Who is going to trade these items normally (for other items or in-game currency) when they can get real money? I fear that this system is going to create a scenario where making a top-tier character will all but require RMT transactions. Your argument is "well some people were doing it anyway so who cares?" Because if Blizzard is successful with it, you can bet that other games will follow suit. Do you really want to live in a world where every online game contains an RMT system where game balance is based on how much real-world money you're willing to spend? Game-altering RMT is damaging to game balance. The last thing anybody needs to do is legitimize that. An Auction House used to trade items for other items or in-game currency? That's groovy. But dragging RMT into the equation is awful. It's funny how you're talking as if Diablo 2 had a stable economy. |
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Aug 1, 2011 13:29:03 GMT -5
I'm hoping Blizzard will incorporate an interesting and elegant trading system that will take the focus away from the auction house, and make it even more feasible (and fun!) to trade with players than browsing through a boring list, paying with money. I am also a huge optimist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Aug 1, 2011 13:48:54 GMT -5
1. You're going to be doing hundreds if not thousands of runs to get the items, runes, gems etc that you need by just playing solo, the odds of a Zod Rune dropping in Diablo 2 are laughably high at best and pretty much winning the lottery at worst. What does solo play have to do with the trading of items online? This comment makes no sense at all. Yeah, something like... in-game gold. Madness! No it didn't. Maybe now it does, since the RMTs have taken over the game, but in D2's prime you could easily gear a character with the best stuff in the game simply by trading with other players. I know this for a fact because I did it more than once. It's funny how you're talking as if Diablo 2 had a stable economy. Diablo 2 didn't have a very good economy, but many other online games do, and RMT hurts them. Very few things can mess up a game's economy like RMT, and you think it's a good idea to turn every player into a gold farmer? Further, Blizzard has said more than once that the wanted to make gold a valuable, important resource in D3, something that could actually be used as a form of proper currency. If you already have a functional form of in-game currency that can be used to buy and sell goods, why deliberately fuck that up by throwing RMT into the mix?* *Hint: Greed. |
|
|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Aug 1, 2011 13:58:23 GMT -5
I've seen a number of f2p MMO's that use microtransactions be not only successful but have legitimately good economies. Compare that to Diablo 2's absolutely broken economy and I know if I had the choice between legitimate RMT and RMT from a shady Chinese farmer, then I'd take the former. Of course, I'd try not to use it if possible. We'll see how far this goes.
I know a number of people are paranoid about this going over to World of Warcraft. But WoW already has a very stable economy and Blizzard makes enough money off of subscription fees and premium vanity pets/mounts, so I really doubt they'll do that unless they want to kill off the game's base.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Aug 1, 2011 14:24:43 GMT -5
I've seen a number of f2p MMO's that use microtransactions be not only successful but have legitimately good economies. Compare that to Diablo 2's absolutely broken economy and I know if I had the choice between legitimate RMT and RMT from a shady Chinese farmer, then I'd take the former. Of course, I'd try not to use it if possible. We'll see how far this goes. I know a number of people are paranoid about this going over to World of Warcraft. But WoW already has a very stable economy and Blizzard makes enough money off of subscription fees and premium vanity pets/mounts, so I really doubt they'll do that unless they want to kill off the game's base. F2p games are also notorious for suffering from "pay to win" syndrome, where anything beyond casual-level all but requires cash investment. Further, as you said, WoW has a stable in-game economy that functions entirely separately from the random pets and mounts they sell for cash (as said pets and mounts cannot be traded in-game). Clearly it's possible to develop a stable economy that does not require the use of outside transactions to function. Again, Blizzard has said more than once that they designed gold in Diablo III to have actual value, so that the game would have a stable in-game economy. So again, if blizzard can do that, why add player-to-player RMT into the mix? Why do that if the existing gold and item bartering is perfectly functional? Why encourage players to simply whip out a credit card and buy their way to the top of the ladder? Because Blizzard gets a cut of the money. Adding real cash as a trading option is not being done because it enhances the game experience. It isn't being done for the benefit of the players or the game as a whole. Obviously most people would rather sell their items for real money instead of in-game currency, so Blizzard has crafted a system where cash transactions between players will become the norm as more and more people begin trying it out. Eventually, your B.Net cash balance will effectively replace in-game gold as the default currency for item trades. It will function exactly like in-game gold does, with one key difference: Blizzard makes money off of it, and by using credit cards to add to their balance, players can effectively print more money (for Blizzard). Use of real cash transactions is not for the benefit of the players. It is entirely for the benefit of Blizzard themselves, and a transparent ploy to convert in-game trades into real world cash flow... mostly cash flow for Blizzard. |
|
|
|
Post by megatronbison on Aug 1, 2011 14:30:11 GMT -5
I find offense at the first part only- having to be permanently online to play a game you just BOUGHT?  As for the RMT stuff- It's only going to affect people stupid enough to lust after virtual objects- by all means, let them piss their money against the wall if they are that dumb- it's not as offensive as DLC and it's "pay for what should have been in the full game plz k thx" mentality. |
|
chucat
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by chucat on Aug 1, 2011 14:33:32 GMT -5
1. You're going to be doing hundreds if not thousands of runs to get the items, runes, gems etc that you need by just playing solo, the odds of a Zod Rune dropping in Diablo 2 are laughably high at best and pretty much winning the lottery at worst. What does solo play have to do with the trading of items online? This comment makes no sense at all. Yeah, something like... in-game gold. Madness! No it didn't. Maybe now it does, since the RMTs have taken over the game, but in D2's prime you could easily gear a character with the best stuff in the game simply by trading with other players. I know this for a fact because I did it more than once. It's funny how you're talking as if Diablo 2 had a stable economy. Diablo 2 didn't have a very good economy, but many other online games do, and RMT hurts them. Very few things can mess up a game's economy like RMT, and you think it's a good idea to turn every player into a gold farmer? Further, Blizzard has said more than once that the wanted to make gold a valuable, important resource in D3, something that could actually be used as a form of proper currency. If you already have a functional form of in-game currency that can be used to buy and sell goods, why deliberately fuck that up by throwing RMT into the mix?* *Hint: Greed. 1. How else are you going to get items, just magic them into existance? You have to do boss runs to get items or Countess runs to get Runes and characters are generally optimized to run this solo. 2. Did you even play Diablo 2, are you aware how useless ingame gold is due to the structure of the game? MMOs done in the style of Diablo 2, such as Phantasy Star Online have massive problems with hyperinflation of the ingame currency due to a lack of gold sinks, and World of Warcraft is slowly starting to develop the same problem. 3. Congratulations you're an anomaly or you got extremely lucky by just spamming "WILL SWAP OCCY FOR SOUL THRESHER" over and over again in the trade chat. 4. The RMTs took over the game because the idea of a barter economy, or one with the most rudimentary of currencies is a terrible idea at best. Maybe if the ingame currency wasn't garbage you'd have a point, but it was, so you don't. 5. Okay, let's say the RMT comes out, and 'every player becomes a gold farmer'. How does this affect you, how would it affect you if almost every other player in Diablo 2 was a gold farmer, unless you made an open game and got spammed by bots or smomething. It's not an open world, WoW-style MMO, you're not going to run out onto the Bloody Foothills and have 50 level 30 Barbarians hitting mobs for gold. |
|
chucat
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by chucat on Aug 1, 2011 14:38:23 GMT -5
I don't get why you keep on bringing up "pay to win" syndrome in a game like this, it's not competitive, the PvP is minimal and there is little to no endgame to speak of (Cool let me do Countess Runs to get my Runeword for my merc so I can finish his gear so he can kill stuff faster so I can finish my gear and then just sit there as immortal godking with perfect gear until the next ladder reset).
If someone wants to pay money to have a nicer set of gear, it won't affect me at all, in fact I'd be happy, it means they can run me through content faster if I ever see them in a Baalrun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Aug 1, 2011 14:55:07 GMT -5
Did you even play Diablo 2, are you aware how useless ingame gold is due to the structure of the game? We aren't talking about Diablo 2, we're talking about Diablo 3, a game that Blizzard designed to have a fully-functional gold-based economy. An economy that they are now preemptively sabotaging by implementing player-to-player RMT. You keep saying "they are doing this because gold and bartering was awful in Diablo 2," then acting as though the only solution is RMT, as opposed to just designing and implementing a more functional in-game economy that doesn't suffer from "gold is worthless" syndrome. I bring up "pay to win" not because of a competitive aspect, but because the way Blizzard has set up this RMT system creates a very real risk that cash transactions will become the default method of trading items, effectively stomping out an otherwise functional gold-based economy. If that happens, in-game gold will be largely devalued as a currency in favor of trading using your B.Net account balance, creating the same situation that you seem to dislike in Diablo 2 so much, where gold is worthless and RMT controls the best gear in the game. |
|
chucat
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by chucat on Aug 1, 2011 15:02:17 GMT -5
The number of games with a functional gold economy is a lot smaller than games without a functioning gold encomy, why on earth should Blizzard invest effort to try to create a working gold economy (which again, is extremely hard), when instead they could just take a working, if clumsy system, and polished it to a working level. The fact they make money is just even better for them.
I don't hate RMT in Diablo 2, I hate the idea of doing it through a third party website with a ton of bullshit bolted onto it. If I could just pay £3 for whatever piece of godtier gear I wanted in 2 minutes I'd do it in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Aug 1, 2011 15:14:06 GMT -5
The number of games with a functional gold economy is a lot smaller than games without a functioning gold encomy, why on earth should Blizzard invest effort to try to create a working gold economy (which again, is extremely hard), when instead they could just take a working, if clumsy system, and polished it to a working level. The fact they make money is just even better for them. Yeah, why should game developers improve on poor design? What was I thinking? It's completely ridiculous to think that the people who make games for a living would want to develop better game mechanics. Ah, now we come to the crux of the problem. Namely, the divide between the people who play games to enjoy a fun, self-contained experience and the people who believe spending cash as a way to take shortcuts in a game is acceptable design. Saying "why not just pay $5 for the best gear" is foolish. It encourages developers to be lazy and spend less effort on game balance and progression, because hey, players can just throw money at it if they want to get better. Your "it's way easier to just pay for items" philosophy comes at the expense of players who don't feel like constantly handing over their pocket change to continue playing a game. |
|
|
|
Post by caoslayer on Aug 1, 2011 15:18:07 GMT -5
The thing is that you will not need to use real money to buy something but exchange one or two of your rare items for getting it.
It is going to be something like second life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shinigami on Aug 1, 2011 15:34:32 GMT -5
Anyone who's played an MMO for a good length of time will develop a lust for virtual items. The games are designed to do that.
This kind of RTM really is the worst kind, the kind where the players who spend the most money have all the best stuff. And as for spending 5 dollars for the leet gearz, think again. Since this is an auction house, there really is nothing stopping people from selling items at ridiculous prices. If they want it bad enough they will gladly pay $100 for Epic Loot of Low Drop Rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Super Orbus on Aug 1, 2011 16:45:58 GMT -5
I wonder if Blizzard has any economists on staff. I remember hearing the EVE Online folks had to hire some. I'd hope they have at least one or two around to help with WoW. Wonder what they think of this...
Feynman, I understand and agree with your objections to complicating the system with real money. But if we're being realistic, that was always going to happen anyway, whether Blizzard legitimized it or not.
|
|
