[Aptorian]

Gothos, on 01 August 2011 - 07:36 AM, said:

There are at least two problems.

One, the sanctioning of a link between a virtual world and real life money. That's just a big no for me.

Two, the motherfucking chinese. Unless Blue presents a meaningful way of making sure their IPs can't connect to western servers, this will be goddamn awful. The gold farms of WoW will branch out to D3 and whip their slave workforce to farm stuff and sell it at 40% or less of what a normal player would charge. Not to mention the rampant botting that will overshine Tibia's. This is blue giving up the fight with gold farmers and just getting their cut out of the pie.

To that, I only have my middle finger for them.

Unfortunately Blizzard is a business. And businesses need to make money. They see all the transactions going on between players and gold farmers and since they can't find a way to stop them, they can at least get a piece of the pie. The only other alternative is to make transaction of items impossible and that would suck even more.

In game stores selling items and gold are probably going to be the norm in the future. Facebook and the free to play MMOs have demonstrated that there is a lot of money to be made there.

The way I see it, who cares? I don't personally need to be the best and most blinged out player for me to enjoy the game. I don't feel a need to buy items either. But some people do. Some people don't mind spending that money, so why not just let them?

[Gothos]

If that's the future then I'll probably just stay with the classics and forego new games. And as for Blizzard being a business, well, of course. But there's making a profit, and then there's blatant money grabs... It's not the same company I used to love, not ever since merging with Activision. Take the latest 'innovation' in WoW - partying up with RealID friends so you can form groups cross-server... a functionality that's already been in the game for (a) year(s), just without the aspect of player choice - they're putting an existing technology in as a premium service just because 'fuck why not try to stop us'. As far as business models go, it's not something I'm prepared to back with my money.

[Tapper]

Y'know Apt, there is a difference between what X dollar means to us, and what it does mean to Gothos and other Eastern Central Europeans, and basically, he can say goodbye to high end multi-player because prices are going to be tagged for Atlantic europe and the US and even most top end players will forego grinding for a certain item to complete their set if they can buy it, not just the cool kids in their nouveau riche basements with daddy-sponsored credit cards, where games like WoW (monthly fee aside) mostly/only depend on time investment.

For myself, well, I wasn't really planning to buy III anyway, and like you I'll probably stick to single player if I do. Still, I am curious how and if they're going to do dollar/euro conversions, and whether items are put up for an in-game cost and a dollar cost, if these prices are tied with a conversion rate(so you can't ask a bazillion gold and $3,- thereby assuring a money buy out), but making a gold buy as likely as a money buy.

[Aptorian]

Gothos, on 01 August 2011 - 08:42 AM, said:

If that's the future then I'll probably just stay with the classics and forego new games. And as for Blizzard being a business, well, of course. But there's making a profit, and then there's blatant money grabs... It's not the same company I used to love, not ever since merging with Activision. Take the latest 'innovation' in WoW - partying up with RealID friends so you can form groups cross-server... a functionality that's already been in the game for (a) year(s), just without the aspect of player choice - they're putting an existing technology in as a premium service just because 'fuck why not try to stop us'. As far as business models go, it's not something I'm prepared to back with my money.

I think perhaps you're being too pessimistic, you've obviously already decided this is bad before you've seen how it pans out. Obviously Blizzard is going to do experiements on how things work. Perhaps they will make sure some tiers can not be traded but only earned. Perhaps they will limit how freely you can spend your money to upgrade your character. Who knows. Either way, why does it need to affect you? Are you planning on buying all the gear instead of working for it? If not I don't see why it matters.

If you look at the way Blizzard addresses these questions you can see that, at least from the phrasing, they are not just doing this to milk the community. They see a need for this system. As a way of facilitating easier and safer transactions between players.

I think you should try and see what it turns into before you just give up.

Tapper, on 01 August 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:

and basically, he can say goodbye to high end multi-player because prices are going to be tagged for Atlantic europe and the US and even most top end players will forego grinding for a certain item to complete their set if they can buy it

I don't really know the specifics of what the MP is going to be like, but what the hell is high end multiplayer anyway? It's not like there are already established guilds and raid dungeons. It's not WoW. Not yet anyway.

Tapper, on 01 August 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:

For myself, well, I wasn't really planning to buy III anyway, and like you I'll probably stick to single player if I do. Still, I am curious how and if they're going to do dollar/euro conversions, and whether items are put up for an in-game cost and a dollar cost, if these prices are tied with a conversion rate(so you can't ask a bazillion gold and $3,- thereby assuring a money buy out), but making a gold buy as likely as a money buy.

Maybe they'll create "Blizzard Points" or something like Microsoft does.

[Beliar]

As much as i may dislike the idea i will freely admit that if someone wishes to use it then let them, i'll just stick with singleplayer and being online with my mates (if that) once it's been completed the 1st time chances are i wont play it again for years anyway unless the story really grips me.

[Tapper]

If there is a need for an auction house, and the implementation of real money transfers (of which they'll probably take a very minor cut on the basis of many cents still make a gazillion dollars) then this indicates that they expect a very lively trading market where people want the very best gear and need it for whatever purpose there is to it.

[TaxManATX]

From some light perusing of the D3 forums over the past few weeks, I think this was already happening in Diablo II. D2jsp.com seems to be a very popular site where users can buy/sell items for "forum gold", which is bought with RL money. It was bound to happen in D3, so Blizzard is just taking control of it.

The only situations I could see this really being a problem are for Ladder (Hardcore Ladder) rankings and PvP. Maybe Blizzard will have a way to split up the ladder for people that have used RMT and those that haven't. Anyways, I don't really see this affecting me much since I never really cared for Ladder or PvP in D2.

EDIT: Check out the Blue post (second post) in this thread.

EDIT2: I'm more apprehensive about the removal of skill points. Going to be interesting to see how D3 plays out.

This post has been edited by TaxManATX: 01 August 2011 - 02:05 PM

[Mentalist]

I strongly dislike the "needs to be connected all the time" bullshit.

when i'm in Uni, I have a wired connection and unlimited bandwidth, so that's all great. However,, when I'm at home, I have a cap., on top of this, all 3 PCs in my house run off a single wireless router, so if it chokes, I may lose my connection, for up to several hours.

oh, and since I haven't played SCII in several months, i've lost the ability to play offline forever fuck you, Blizz.

[QuickTidal]

I think my main issue with Blizzard taking control is like this:

Drugs make money.

Bad drugs make money and dealers are going to peddle it.

If bad drugs make money and dealers are going to peddle it to rich folk who can afford an addiction...why not get their fingers in that pie.

Does it get rid of gold-farmers? yeah, but who stops the prices from jumping anyways down the line, it's bullshit to think Blizzard will simply "monitor". Does it make the game cost you more money if you want to have a shot? It sure a shit does.

That's not right to me. It actually starts to RUIN the aspect of online co-op-style play in the first place. At which point you either have to play single player (which of course won't exist), or deal with the way they've essentially let gold farmers win. To me that's about as wrong as it gets. The problem is that there will always be idiots who wants to supe themselves up...so Blizzard answers by giving in to this?

Man, fuck that noise. Yeah, Blizzard is a business, but at what point do we get to call foul? Or does Blizzard, because they are a business, get to make money ANY WAY they see fit? There's a few major American corporations recently that have shown us just how far suits will take cheating the fucking system to make more money and game companies are not immune to this. At what point do we stop making petty excuses for them letting the dealers win?

I also feel that no offline play is Blizzard saying Fuck you to fans of the series. If they are so worried about piracy, then make people aware of the fact that you can't build a character offline and bring them online...so you either decided to play single offline, or multi online...either or and the two don't mix...

you don't make a game and make that decision for fans who expected an offline version. That's complete bullshit.

This post has been edited by King Kazma: 02 August 2011 - 05:25 PM

[Mentalist]

yeah, I couldn't care less about gold farming, b/c I never play online, and I never touched WoW, but by tying the game to an i-net connection, Ubisoft-style, they are essentially alienating all those people who played D2 in single-player, or in LAN parties, without setting foot on battle.net.

which is ironic, since the early previews of the game showed that they really wanted to work on the story aspect of D3, which is somehting traditionally used to attract the very types of players they are now actively alienating.
sigh, the ways of games marketing are strange and mysterious. I hope this causes as much uproar as their suggestion to tie battle.net accounts to people's real names.

[QuickTidal]

Mentalist, on 02 August 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

yeah, I couldn't care less about gold farming, b/c I never play online, and I never touched WoW, but by tying the game to an i-net connection, Ubisoft-style, they are essentially alienating all those people who played D2 in single-player, or in LAN parties, without setting foot on battle.net.

which is ironic, since the early previews of the game showed that they really wanted to work on the story aspect of D3, which is somehting traditionally used to attract the very types of players they are now actively alienating.
sigh, the ways of games marketing are strange and mysterious. I hope this causes as much uproar as their suggestion to tie battle.net accounts to people's real names.

Indeed, it's a complete middle finger to offline single player fans. They make the excuse that most gamers are connected to a broadband connection all the time anyways...no Blizzard, don't fucking assume that for people. It's entirely assinine of them.

[alt146]

I also really don't care all that much about the whole auction house thing. The whole need to constantly be connected to the internet is a giant pain in the ass. Blizzard has basically killed their sales in South Africa, New Zealand and anywhere else that have hard caps and a heavy reliance on wireless for internet. I have 2GB of internet a month that may or may not be working at any given time. A constant connection will kill my cap, when my internet is actually working well enough for me to play. Not to mention the huge international latencies for the few people here who do actually have decent internet. It's a huge pity, I absolutely love D2 and have been waiting for D3 for ages. Maybe it's a good thing I don't have the time to game like I did when I was in varsity, with the way things are going in the gaming world in general it will probably save me a huge amount of frustration in the long run.

[Mentalist]

alt146, on 03 August 2011 - 08:59 AM, said:

I also really don't care all that much about the whole auction house thing. The whole need to constantly be connected to the internet is a giant pain in the ass. Blizzard has basically killed their sales in South Africa, New Zealand and anywhere else that have hard caps and a heavy reliance on wireless for internet. I have 2GB of internet a month that may or may not be working at any given time. A constant connection will kill my cap, when my internet is actually working well enough for me to play. Not to mention the huge international latencies for the few people here who do actually have decent internet. It's a huge pity, I absolutely love D2 and have been waiting for D3 for ages. Maybe it's a good thing I don't have the time to game like I did when I was in varsity, with the way things are going in the gaming world in general it will probably save me a huge amount of frustration in the long run.

omg
I have a 60 gig cap, and i'm struggling.
2 gigs would be horror

[Kanese S's]

Just saw this thread.

Reading the last bit, seems like people are saying Diablo 3 is going to be online only? No offline single-player mode?

If that's true, what a bunch of bullshit. Guess I won't be getting it, which is disappointing for me, as I'd been looking forward to a D2 sequel, as it's pretty much my favorite game.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Yep, it's going the way of SC2, except there isn't a nation where it's the national sport. People may buy it, but it will not be popular.

[Kanese S's]

This irritates me more than it should. But I was looking forward to that shit, and now I find it's just going to be crap.

[Silencer]

alt146, on 03 August 2011 - 08:59 AM, said:

I also really don't care all that much about the whole auction house thing. The whole need to constantly be connected to the internet is a giant pain in the ass. Blizzard has basically killed their sales in South Africa, New Zealand and anywhere else that have hard caps and a heavy reliance on wireless for internet. I have 2GB of internet a month that may or may not be working at any given time. A constant connection will kill my cap, when my internet is actually working well enough for me to play. Not to mention the huge international latencies for the few people here who do actually have decent internet. It's a huge pity, I absolutely love D2 and have been waiting for D3 for ages. Maybe it's a good thing I don't have the time to game like I did when I was in varsity, with the way things are going in the gaming world in general it will probably save me a huge amount of frustration in the long run.

This.

And I guess my cap makes me middle-ground between you and Ment, with 20Gb. Then again, I have a much faster connection than you, eh, alt?

The moment I saw the news about constant online, I stopped even looking at anything else - it just is no longer a viable purchase for me. Heck, I game a lot on my laptop. It's not always plugged in when gaming. To help battery life, I turn the wifi off. Apparently, this means I cannot play DIII any more. That's stupid. Goodbye, Blizzard, it was nice knowing you...

[Aptorian]

I'm curious, does playing online effect the amount of data you download? Isn't that just regular communication like browsing websites? If it does have an effect how much "data" does it use during say an hour of online play?

As far as I've heard the "always online" requirement is simply a security type of check where it checks who you are and what game you are running. It's not like it is supposed to be sending mbs back and forth every minute.

This post has been edited by Nyapt Cat: 04 August 2011 - 05:27 AM

[alt146]

Silencer, on 04 August 2011 - 04:43 AM, said:

alt146, on 03 August 2011 - 08:59 AM, said:

I also really don't care all that much about the whole auction house thing. The whole need to constantly be connected to the internet is a giant pain in the ass. Blizzard has basically killed their sales in South Africa, New Zealand and anywhere else that have hard caps and a heavy reliance on wireless for internet. I have 2GB of internet a month that may or may not be working at any given time. A constant connection will kill my cap, when my internet is actually working well enough for me to play. Not to mention the huge international latencies for the few people here who do actually have decent internet. It's a huge pity, I absolutely love D2 and have been waiting for D3 for ages. Maybe it's a good thing I don't have the time to game like I did when I was in varsity, with the way things are going in the gaming world in general it will probably save me a huge amount of frustration in the long run.

This.

And I guess my cap makes me middle-ground between you and Ment, with 20Gb. Then again, I have a much faster connection than you, eh, alt?

The moment I saw the news about constant online, I stopped even looking at anything else - it just is no longer a viable purchase for me. Heck, I game a lot on my laptop. It's not always plugged in when gaming. To help battery life, I turn the wifi off. Apparently, this means I cannot play DIII any more. That's stupid. Goodbye, Blizzard, it was nice knowing you...

Hmm, I can't actually remember Our wireless is relatively speedy (faster than our landlines at least) - I have 7.2Mbps and if you pay slightly more and live in the right areas you can get 14 or 21Mbps. The main problem is that it is unreliable and there isn't much of it

Nyapt Cat, on 04 August 2011 - 05:24 AM, said:

I'm curious, does playing online effect the amount of data you download? Isn't that just regular communication like browsing websites? If it does have an effect how much "data" does it use during say an hour of online play?

As far as I've heard the "always online" requirement is simply a security type of check where it checks who you are and what game you are running. It's not like it is supposed to be sending mbs back and forth every minute.

It depends exactly what the system is set up to do and how often. If it's just to stop piracy, then it shouldn't use huge amounts of data, just a little check every couple of minutes to check your copy is valid. They have however said that one of their concerns was also about the possiblity of people cheating if they bring single-player characters onto B-Net. it sounds like all your characters will also be stored server-side, and if it works anything like D2 did then whenever you pick up an item/level up/change your character somehow, it does a little autosave. Unless there is some sort of option that you want to play on your own in quasi-offline mode, all your movements and actions will probably be transitted as well. If you are playing with other people all their movements and actions will be transmitted to you, plus other stuff needed to keep the game in sync. In addition online-mulitplayer only type games generally require everyone to be running on exactly the same version, so there will be a bunch of compulsory updates, which will likely be reasonably big. Until the game is out, it's impossible to tell exactly how much bandwidth it will use, but for someone in my position, any is already too much.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

The problem is that if players really still want to hack, and are really still the cleverest, you can still Matrix hack the servers.

(not as in the movies, as in a input-output transformation-matrix hack, essentially a man in the middle of sorts)