EPTIt's up to Blizzard to make it work or not. I'm honestly disappointed with how SC2 turned out, so if this is another failure due to Blizzard's egotistical decisions, I will move on to other games to play.
Diablo III General Discussion - Page 142
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
aurum510
United States229 Posts
It's up to Blizzard to make it work or not. I'm honestly disappointed with how SC2 turned out, so if this is another failure due to Blizzard's egotistical decisions, I will move on to other games to play. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
Its different if blizz is selling the gold instead of third party gold sellers. Because they have the ideological justification for their actions, and there is lack of profit antagonism as there would be in case of third party sellers and main game. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:26 papaz wrote: Meaning there is no more "honor" i Diablo 3 (perhaps only in hardcore mode) because "lulz n00b, everyone can buy the gear you have". If you haven't noticed itemization is a huuuuuuuuuge thing in D3 and Blizzard ruining it means they pretty much ruin the effort put into the game for many of us. I for one will definetely not buy the game either. This step was too big and in the wrong direction. The same reason I stopped playing Activision FPS games, because they too are going in an awful direction where soon more money = better game rather than hours spent/practiced. You're kidding, right? Get off that high horse. "Honor" has been gone from the majority of D2 for a long, long time now. It disappeared as soon as hacks, dupes, and sale sites appeared. The same "honorable" people won't use the AH while the people who would normally buy things will continue to buy things. This has changed nothing. The only legit complaints about D3 are the skills change and the required internet connection to play, in my opinion. | ||
|
Br33zyy
United States296 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:29 aurum510 wrote: I'm honestly disappointed with how SC2 turned out, so if this is another failure due to Blizzard's egotistical decisions, I will move on to other games to play. Another failure? Since when was SC2 a failure? I think the tens of thousands of people who were watching MLG and the hundreds of people who attended it would think differently. | ||
|
Bajadulce
United States322 Posts
I never did much trading in D2 as mostly I wasn't really interested in using items I didn't find myself. I tended to just give away things to friends. Then again I never played LOD so uber items weren't that much of a premium anyways. Weapons being the most cherished items in D2 Classic and was always sorta fun to build melee characters only AFTER you found your weapon with your mage. But I might give organized trading a try if it is easy to use. | ||
|
sOvrn
United States678 Posts
I think this is a bad idea because they say "hey, this won't affect gold based trading," but that's bullshit. If you get an uber rare drop, why the hell would you sell it on the gold based market rather than the dollar market? This natural incentive to make real cash off your rare item, will lead to a shittier gold based market, in terms of how good an item you can get from here. Furthermore, I don't think this will help stop chinese gold farmer slave labor; maybe it will possibly motivate them further? Honestly, I planned on playing HC from the beginning and I'm glad they decided not to implement the cash AH for hardcore, so I really don't care. However, I'm feeling bad for softcore players. Why the hell do they want their games to be like a second job I have no idea. Blah, what bad news this is =[ | ||
|
Logikz
United States65 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Wait a minute here now. People complain about having to be online to play the game? - People complained about cheaters in D2, they complained about dupes, hacks and all sorts of things. Online only is the only way to fix this. People complain about no mods? - People complained about maphacks and botting in D2. No mods is the only way to fix this. People complain about auction house for real world currency? - Diablo II thread is full of people talking about how much forum gold they have (mainly because of boting/maphacks) which can be bought for real life money. IE the community have CLEARLY shown they want to be able to buy items for real life money. Same thing has been equally clearly demonstrated in WoW, EVE and any other MMORPG out there. People want to be able to buy items. Simple as that and they WILL do it and Blizzard can't stop it. So they regulate it instead. tl;dr: Outraged people are hypocrites when raging on Blizzard since they are only giving the community EXACTLY what it wants. Action speaks louder than words and all that. Thank you, I don't understand the outrage either. | ||
|
Tiazi
Netherlands761 Posts
FILE NOT FOUND. Back to Battle.net Account Management Anyone else got this problem? | ||
|
Vortok
United States830 Posts
Real world money for ingame money/items/advantages is a model that actually works in some games. Being that Diablo is a loot centric game it's a bit of a tougher call. Yeah, it'd happen anyway just like in D2, but many people that would "play legit" (most of them not even knowing they could buy gear for cash) will now see that option and not think twice about doing it. That's the only real downside I can think of. All the other "it cheapens the experience" stuff was going to happen no matter what. Just makes it more widespread this way, for better or worse. I know some people on the Borderlands forums made a "no dupe" trading group (though it's honor system, I believe), so they could all have legit characters with unique items and still be able to trade with others. If you're so attached to the idea, make a group like that yourself. If the issue is half as sensitive as some of you make it out to be, shouldn't be too hard to get it off the ground. If you want to see how a fairly high profile game tried to combat real world trading, look up Runescape when it first introduced the Grand Exchange and all the changes they made to the game a few years back. tl;dr version - they just recently undid nearly all of those changes. I'm not a huge Diablo fan and barely played D2 (offline years ago because my internet blew chunks - friends were really into it though - the one that always played hardcore was whimpering over vent for awhile last night before gradually being okay with the info he read). The D2 skill system has always been rather annoying to me, though. Played 20+ hours and most of the way through Nightmare/starting Hell? Guess what! Your character blows. Return to character creation screen and start over. Now do that several more times before you realize you should've looked up a copy/pasta build for your first time through the game! /trollface I can appreciate the nigh limitless builds it could produce, but it was a very unforgiving and unintuitive system, which the dev (Jay Wilson, I think) explained rather well in the interview I read (ditto on stat points - math whiz will figure out the "correct" allocation anyway - uninformed players will mostly gimp themselves one way or another). It seemed like the correct way to use the skill system in D2 was often times to not use it for dozens of levels at a time and let the skill points pile up before finally spending them. The way the new system was described sounds a bit more interesting. Versatility seems to be the core tenet that people liked about the D2 skill system, and it sounds like they've kept that alive so far. D2 has cookie cutter specs and so will D3. As was mentioned in the diablofans interview, just because there's one or two optimal builds, doesn't mean there can't be dozens more viable builds for getting through the game. PvP - if you care, stop crying like a scrub and find a way to make it work. Look at the majority of games. Specific rulesets that differ from the base game are often used. Not just any map is used in Starcraft - there's a reason default Blizzard maps aren't in the Proleague rotation (and the chokes into most naturals are designed in specific ways on current Kespa maps to allow simcity like Forge FE). If the Diablo community cares, they'll just ban the super imba shit from any fan run events. Granted the devs seem to be pretty unsupportive of PvP at the moment, but I'm sure they'll add more options (custom/private match type stuff that allows you to tweak the rules) if enough noise is made. The tone I got was "release a game that's cool at launch, worry about how the game will play 2 months after launch.... 2 months after launch." The response to the question about "deleveling" (reverse sidekick) to play with a friend new to the game also pointed to that thought process. As long as there's a way to fight specific people (even if it's friend them, manually invite to game, go to arena area/whatever) there will be a way, even if some third party site has to act as the "matchmaking" system (Game Battles says hi). If there's a demand, someone will find a way to make it happen. | ||
|
Furycrab
Canada456 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:20 Danjoh wrote: (1) Wait, are you saying Ubisoft is a good example? I had to download a pirated version of the game I bought from them, because they were having problems AT THEIR END for 3 WEEKS, wich meant I couldn't even start my SINGLEPLAYER ONLY game. (as a compensation, I did get a free 20 euro game... WICH I COULDN'T START IETHER BECAUSE OF THEIR DRM!) (2) The pick is not between UI mods and bots/hacks vs niether. Bots and hacks will exist even whitout the UI mods. (3) I'll just use blizzards argument as to why I think it's a dumb idea. "If I have more money than time I can purchase items, or if I’m leet in the game I can get benefits out of it." Added with this next quote: "Blizzard will take a small cut, but they’re not expecting to make too much of a profit out of it themselves.". And level caps on items... what was wrong with D2s version of getting strength for better items? (1) The servers going down was because some hackers decided it would be fun to try and take the authentication servers down to try and make a point. I wouldn't put it past them to try and bring down Blizzard servers, but if you look at SC2 servers, they have pretty darn spotless uptime (Easily 99%+). IF the servers do go down, I still can't carry my characters from single player... So I wouldn't be playing anyways. It's not "great" but it works. (2) Bots and hacks will exist, but fewer bots and hacks will exist if you don't allow mods and the ones that do get made are easier to track. Since it's online play only, they can ban them too. Like I said, if Mods are your "thing" Torchlight 2 is really big on all that... Just don't act surprised if you see more cheating in that game. (3) It just comes down to: People will do it anyways. This way they regulate it, and heck, you might be able to make a little money off it. They are just being honest about taking a cut from it now, and I don't see why not since they will be enabling the transactions and it's secure. If you play a lot, you can make a little money from the extra perks and stuff you get... and if you do have disposable income, but no time to hope and farm that last unique piece... Well you can pay the guy who did. I'm not sure what I think of it yet, but I don't see it as terrible. | ||
|
Zozo
Brazil2579 Posts
I wish the old rune system was still in though, we lose a lot of variety with this new one. | ||
|
aurum510
United States229 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:36 Br33zyy wrote: Another failure? Since when was SC2 a failure? I think the tens of thousands of people who were watching MLG and the hundreds of people who attended it would think differently. It's arguable. The game has actually been underwhelming, selling less games in it's 1 year history than WoW sold in it's first month. Blizzard hasn't even broke even yet with the hundreds of millions of dollars they say they have put in the game. The number of games being played is also about 5% of what it was during the first month of release. I just don't find it fun, and I'm certainly not buying Heart of the Swarm. I think there are many people who agree with me. | ||
|
[Agony]x90
United States853 Posts
Someone mentioned three examples for dishonorable "black market" dealings in D2, which included gold selling, character selling and power leveling. The only thing that AH actually allows is the gold selling. As far as I can tell, character selling is simply not viable with the new system, unless of course you're willing to pay for the 60 dollar account along with the lvl 70 blank character. Lastly, power leveling will be based upon the leveling system in the game, something we have not seen yet. Please remember that we've been through a lot of this before with SC2. Some of my friends still refuse to use Steam, simply because they dislike the idea of electronic purchase. They have yet to take another look at the system, and as a result have been missing out on a system to has effectively proven itself. I think people should have their minds open to these changes, especially since computer gaming is truly dying due to piracy and other bizarre complications related to the "less honest" community. At least wait for the beta and even for a couple months after D3's release to see what the general response and opinion of the actual product is. Another way to look at the way Blizzard is working is that they're being honest. Maybe Activision is screwing them over by forcing them to use underhanded tactics in order to abuse the customers and obtain more cash. However, Blizzard is not looking to hide this. Instead, they're giving this information out, even if they know people will not like it. If it turns out that the information they give out is as terrible as some make it out to be, then by all means don't purchase the game and once you have the concrete evidence that Blizzard has made an unfair deal with its purchasers, you will not need to make justifications as to why you don't want to pay for the game. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:29 aurum510 wrote: The success of D3 depends on if Blizzard is going to ban botters left and right. If they do a good job, D3 will be a success and people will play it for a long time, giving Blizzard additional profit. However, if Blizzard slacks AT ALL, this game will turn to dust. It's up to Blizzard to make it work or not. I'm honestly disappointed with how SC2 turned out, so if this is another failure due to Blizzard's egotistical decisions, I will move on to other games to play. If I recall, D2 has been doing OK for ... like a decade haha. And it's FILLED to the brim with botters. You sure botters keep people from playing? | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
'Don't like, don't use' is not an argument. It would equally justify D3 having ingame cheats. Design choices that encourage the bypassing of the bulk of the game - character development, boggle my mind. I'm not hugely against the concept of RMT, though. It's always been a way to bypass the grindy, repeat-the-same-area part of the game and get to the 'use your grinded stuff' part, which is generally the actual game content. The problem is that when your game is about the equipment and item collection, suddenly silliness arises. My initial impression is negative as hell, though I guess I should wait to see how it's implemented. | ||
|
aurum510
United States229 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:50 FallDownMarigold wrote: If I recall, D2 has been doing OK for ... like a decade haha. And it's FILLED to the brim with botters. You sure botters keep people from playing? Those 100,000 or so "accounts" who play are mostly bots. I'd say 95% of them are bots. Or more. So, no, D2 is not doing OK. I'd say there's maybe a total of 1,000 players who play D2 who don't bot or buy items from websites. | ||
|
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:50 FallDownMarigold wrote: If I recall, D2 has been doing OK for ... like a decade haha. And it's FILLED to the brim with botters. You sure botters keep people from playing? I wouldn't even have played D2 if not for bots. The drop rate on the Zod rune was just ridiculous. | ||
|
aurum510
United States229 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:51 Dfgj wrote: Cool. I always wanted a way for more players to skip the entire point of the game. 'Don't like, don't use' is not an argument. It would equally justify D3 having ingame cheats. Design choices that encourage the bypassing of the bulk of the game - character development, boggle my mind. I'm not hugely against the concept of RMT, though. It's always been a way to bypass the grindy, repeat-the-same-area part of the game and get to the 'use your grinded stuff' part, which is generally the actual game content. The problem is that when your game is about the equipment and item collection, suddenly silliness arises. My initial impression is negative as hell, though I guess I should wait to see how it's implemented. Well this is the reason Blizzard is making items have level requirements, rather than attribute requirements. You'd have to play the game a lot to get these "godmode" items, which means you haven't skipped anything. | ||
|
aurum510
United States229 Posts
On August 01 2011 23:55 iamke55 wrote: I wouldn't even have played D2 if not for bots. The drop rate on the Zod rune was just ridiculous. Zod rune can only drop from chests from Act 5 hell. The reason you would not play D2, is that you would need to play for a decade to even get a Zod rune legitimately. That's a flaw in game design. Diablo 3 will not have this flaw. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
Those who are too young to have remember, back in the day everquest/diablo 2 had made quite a splash actually allowing for people to make a living playing video games selling things on ebay. At one point the IRS and congress started making inquiries into how to classify video game assets as potential taxable assets. This stems from the ability to judge market worth of the item. This foray into the tax code freaked out a lot of devs, for various reasons prime reason being its really hard to convince people to play a game that potentially becomes a tax liability. This is why all EULA state that selling and buying is illegal and that all items in the game belong to developer/have no real worth. (this is also when ebaying became a no no on various games, before devs werent sure how they really wanted to approach it and were jsut happy about the free advertising from the whole situation, fear of government inquiries caused them to change that stance) I'm interested in how the wording on the EULA is going to work here, its going to be an incredible piece of legalese. Additionally, legitimizing inter player transactions potentially across international borders on items that can easily appreciate/deprecate worth on a legitimate fair market value system coupled with the fact it is naturally going to be the easiest thing in the world to track will really re open the discussion on taxation of virtual game items. | ||
| ||
