Blizzard Reveals Diablo 3 (Real Money) Auction House 384
trawg writes "At a special event at Blizzard HQ in California, gaming press were treated to the first look at the Diablo 3 auction house — featuring real-world money transactions across different regions allowing you to buy and sell items with real money. There'll be a listing fee and a sales fee for auctions, and while they're not talking dollar numbers just yet, Blizzard assures gamers that they're not looking to pinch pennies."
Update: 08/01 17:41 GMT by S :The other big piece of news about Diablo 3 is that it will require a persistent connection to Battle.net to play, even for single-player mode. Eurogamer has a detailed write-up about the current state of the beta.
no offline play = no sale (Score:2, Interesting)
tsia
Re: (Score:2)
Who plays Diablo offline?
On a side note: I'm excitedly waiting for the shitstorm to flair up when the first guy manages to accidentally spend $1000 instead of $10.00 on some random piece of crap in game.
Re:no offline play = no sale (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What? Though since you've never played online you probably don't know that RMT exists in Diablo 2 as well, and this is an effort to combat the most negative associations that go along with RMT (cheating/hacking/scamming).
Also, I think you are mistaken by assuming that the majority of D2 players didn't play online.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, I think you are mistaken by assuming that the majority of D2 players didn't play online.
I think you're mistaken by assuming that the post you replied to claimed that.
But yeah, many people played (and plays!) D2 offline. I'm one of them - I can't be arsed to deal with the LULWOT crowd.
Until there's a way to filter on verified age, that won't change.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not....
it does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Between the ages of five and fifteen, there is a very strong correlation.
Re: (Score:3)
If !A -> B
Therefore A -> !B
get your maths right.
from !A -> B you can only infer !B -> A
Re: (Score:2)
That's just my hunch, based on personal experience. Seems like neither of us has figures, though.
Re: (Score:3)
It's 2011. Network connectivity is assumed, and this is nearly always a valid assumption.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:no offline play = no sale (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about that - gaming while "stuck someplace" must be quite common to judge by the ever-growing "app"-game market.
Re: (Score:3)
It's 2011. As internet usage accelerates - Netflix, online gaming etc. - ISPs are throttling network connections, sometimes just blocking service if you go over a certain limit. Why should you need to gobble up unknown amounts of monthly "allowance" from God Emperor ISP to play a game single-player just because they have this fear of piracy? Pirates will have a "no internet required" patch out in no time, meaning only paying customers will be subject to this totally needless (except for DLC and bug reportin
I'd probably count you in the minorty (Score:4, Interesting)
I bought Diablo II and played it in single player and on a LAN exclusively.
My friends and I did the same, at least initially, but once I got onto Battle.net, I played online exclusively. The rest of them did the same once they got internet access at home.
One of them did something I thought very odd, though. He played on Battle.net, but only ever by himself. He didn't trade items, either. I couldn't fathom why anyone would do that, considering the palpable negative effects the added latency and the occasional full-on desync had on the game itself.
[nostalgia]
To this day, I really, really miss hacking that game. I hereby give a shout out to anyone who recognizes these names or hacks: Herzog Zwei, Thohell, Very_Superior (though a jerk he mostly was), BootyJu1ce, EvilCheese (very, very brilliant hacker), Oxide (who I was told was a twerp), the Chest Hack (0x44, how we hardly knew ye), "The Matrix" (and anyone who liked the Ith War Pike I made on USEast), and (quite possibly the funniest exploit ever) Imbue Scanning.
[/nostalgia]
That game made me loathe dialup internet.
Re: (Score:2)
One of them did something I thought very odd, though. He played on Battle.net, but only ever by himself. He didn't trade items, either. I couldn't fathom why anyone would do that, considering the palpable negative effects the added latency and the occasional full-on desync had on the game itself.
Loot, which isn't always identical offline and online.
Re: (Score:2)
One of them did something I thought very odd, though. He played on Battle.net, but only ever by himself. He didn't trade items, either. I couldn't fathom why anyone would do that, considering the palpable negative effects the added latency and the occasional full-on desync had on the game itself.
Loot, which isn't always identical offline and online.
Ahhh... a keen observation! I wouldn't go so far as to say he was aware of that, though. I don't recall hearing a reason that made sense when I asked "why?" some years ago. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Who plays Diablo offline?
My mother. A lot. A whole lot more then I ever played diablo. (queue in the "your mother" jokes)
But the "no offline" play will most likely mean that Blizzard won't see our money this time around. We have 2x Diablo II with exp, and no interest in online play.
I can understand the "do not mix offline/online chars" idea. But only offering "always online" as an option is stupid in that case. Give the option to play offline and mark that character as "invalid for online play". Guess I'll wait for the torrent. I w
Re: (Score:3)
how about RTFA (read THIS fucking article)
http://www.1up.com/news/diablo-3-requires-online-when-playing [1up.com]
you could argue that these features enhance gameplay/experience, and the online requirement isn't only for DRM/security (although simple auth like, SC2, should take care of those concerns)
really like the shared item stash (a la Torchlight)
A persistent friends list.
Cross-game chat via the RealID system.
Persistent characters that are stored server-side (no more having to play online once every 90 days, nor i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For Great Justice!*
* brought to you by the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hello IRS (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
This.
This is nothing new, a lot of games does something similar with real money, and the IRS hasn't freaked out more than usual (not in my country anyway).
Move along.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the IRS is a US institution and as such doesn't much matter outside of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I should had been more precise.
When saying IRS, I meant [insert national tax agency]
but will they tax in game gold and the gold auctio (Score:2)
but will they tax in game gold and the gold auction house?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the case law on that is, but technically I think that would be considered bartering and as such taxable. You spent time accumulating the gold or items that you're then trading for some other items or gold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has a revolution eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
The IRS should get involved. (Score:2)
Just about sums it up. This isn't much different than anything else online. I pay taxes on my XBox 360 purchases, this shouldn't be any different just because it is online.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't much different than anything else online. I pay taxes on my XBox 360 purchases, this shouldn't be any different just because it is online.
We are talking about "in-game items" here, which are simple database entries. Now please explain why these shouldnt be any different than the purchase of a game.
Re: (Score:2)
A game is just data too, and is likely a simple entry in a nosql style database in the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, what makes me curious is if they have to enforce in-State taxation for people that buy things from each other, in the same State.
Re: (Score:2)
yes. same ugly as selling shit on ebay.
no. news. here.
I've never sold anything on ebay, so I don't know - but does the Fed track the guy selling his old weed whacker? I think if your income is less than XX they won't even bother.
besides, you can have credit applied to you battlenet account (which will be more lucrative than cash.. esp since there will be fees involved for cash transacitons)
just please don't use pay pal.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no tax attorney (thank the heavens), but my understanding is that virtual items will be treated as assets, so the IRS would only get involved if a player cashes out those assets and realizes a gain. The upside is that, if I understand correctly, gamers making money off of playing Diablo would be treated like hedge fund managers and be taxed on that income at the 15% capital gains rate rather than ordinary income tax levels.
Oh, look (Score:3, Insightful)
Blizzard jumped a shark.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? At least with Blizzard on board finally you don't have to go to some shady 3rd party chinese site to buy items like vast amounts of people did in D2. Or would you rather them go back to their policy of shutting down people for copyright infringement for selling in game items or Wow gold [securitycurve.com]?
Hooray! (Score:2)
Awesome new way to launder all of my illicit income.
The new truism (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't beat 'em, monetise 'em.
I guess in principle it's probably not _all_ that evil.
Still, it makes me think the gameplay experience will be like a Free To Play game... but with a $60 USD (or $90 AUD, grrrr) barrier to entry.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like to purchase the license to use this item for $2?
Re: (Score:2)
All they're doing is hosting a player auction house, where items can be bought from players by players for cash. They're not selling items themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right. guess who gets charged transaction fees for that? Not who pays it, but who will the fingers be pointed at?
Blizzard.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh. If I was going to have to deal with a bunch of cash, I'd charge a fee too. It's a huge pain in the ass. They'll need new staff, and they'll have to pay fees, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a trivial change. Previously you could only buy purely cosmetic benefits for Blizzard games (unless you were involved in seedy craiglist-style transactions). The shift in policy from only allowing the sale of cosmetic effects to allowing the sale of actual in-game benefits is significant, even if Blizzard isn't going to be doing the selling. Whether you think it's wonderful or terrible, it's a notable change in game dynamics.
Re: (Score:2)
If Blizzard *themselves* were selling weapons or armor or something that they created, then yes, I would agree. This is just bringing the player-to-player exchanges that have been around since forever in-house.
Re: (Score:2)
however, its slightly mitigated in that you can't magic items out of thin air - ie, the game balance might just be kept if the fancy items simply change hands from one player to another.
Its not like they are allowing you to buy skill points, which would be terribly bad. I guess it just legitimises those craigslist transactions (which you can't really stop if one player "decides" to give his fancy item to another player), and allows Blizzard to grab a little fee as thoseplayers do it, which they would go ahe
Hypocritical decisions (Score:3)
So, Blizzard doesn't allow Real Money Trading in WoW, but is going to set up a system in Diablo 3 for that?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not hypocrisy, it's R&D. If they can make more money doing this they will most certainly bring it to WoW. Patience friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the issue there is since the trading is done outside of the game that they don't have anyway of ensuring that the trading isn't just a scam. The fact that they also aren't making money on it is probably the final nail in the coffin though.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if he can, but I can: here [wired.co.uk]. Took about 5 secs of Google. From the article:
To play Diablo 3, you'll need a constant internet connection -- it cannot be played offline.
Amusing part: they're trying to spin this as "good" for players: "no longer will you have to worry about leveling up to 30-40, then having to restart from scratch on Battle.net! Everyone who wants to level to 30-40 and never play on battle.net: you can just go fuck yourself." Thats a paraphrase, but you get the idea. BTW, that would be people like me. No interest in online play, would love LAN/ singleplayer. It's OK: I most likely won't have to worry about either the DRM or playing online. Either through not buying the game or... well, use your imagination.
Oh yeah, and rich players can buy more power through this auction house. Next step: items that Blizzard is selling that can only be bought on the auction house. They might not do that: depends if Activision (aka Bobby Kotick) is really letting Blizzard be free to do their thing or not. Blizzard would realize that would ruin the game. Activision just sees the $$$$$$$ they could make, and screw the gamers (more).
Oh yeah, and no modding either, according to that same article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This site references an interview Blizzard gave PC Gamer. Starcraft 2 has a timeout for single player without internet. I didn't know that until I was on a ship for a month and it stopped letting me play.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.1up.com/news/diablo-3-requires-online-when-playing [1up.com]
The best quote is from Rob Pardo (Executive Vice President of Blizzard):
While Pardo recognizes that people sometimes want or need to play offline (such as internet outages, or playing on a laptop during an airplane flight), he notes that the increased security, plus benefits like the above, outweigh those other concerns. "I want to play Diablo 3 on my laptop in a plane, but, well, there are other games to play for times like that."
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the third part of their announcement: No mods. They won't enable them, they won't allow them, and they won't stand by while the community creates them.
I don't care because I never used many mods, but I expect this to cause a bigger uproar than the auction house announcement.
Re: (Score:3)
Haha. So Blizzard makes the exact same DRM scheme as Ubisoft, but it "isn't anything like Ubisoft" because Blizzard used a different excuse to justify it.
That's better PR, not a better customer experience. Just because Ubisoft are too retarded to come up with a better excuse doesn't mean you should fall for it when somebody else does.
Pay To Work!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your point would be more valid if there weren't dozens of services that do the exact same thing already. I see this as Blizzard making a virtue of necessity: if people are going to sell their rare items, then why not facilitate that?
Nobody is making you play.
Re: (Score:2)
Because its mandatory that you use the auction house...
Liability? (Score:2)
There must be some kind of mistake (Score:2)
It's August 1st, not April 1st today. I know they both start with "A", but you really shouldn't post things that are so obviously untrue until April Fool's Day rolls around again, since it's just not funny. I mean, this is a joke, right?
So can you sue people who make your group wipe? (Score:2)
Mess up that pull? That will be $5 to cover my repair costs please.
Amazingly bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
EQ2 Exchange Servers (Score:2)
The Three Part Yawn (Score:2)
So I'm reading that there are three parts to what Blizzard revealed today.
1. D3 players must be always connected to the internet. I don't much care about this, as long as I can play single-player. All my Steam games are always connected already; I'm getting used to it. As long as I can have a game that outsiders cannot join and that is balanced for a single person, I don't care if my internet connection has to be on to play it. (Two years ago my answer would have been different, as I only had a flaky d
Re:Nope, not going to play Diablo 3. (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuck everything about this...
I kind of have to agree...
I was a hardcore D2 gamer, almost failed out of college because of that game, and I've been looking forward to D3 Very Much.
But real money? No. I play games as an escape from thinking about things like my bank account.
Bliz, please rethink this.
Let a real money secondary economy evolve, but for the love of Pete don't enshrine it in the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Let a real money secondary economy evolve, but for the love of Pete don't enshrine it in the game.
Why? This means that you are less likely to get ripped off since Blizzard will be running it versus the third party sites where you are most likely getting scammed from. Why would you think the second choice is better?
Re: (Score:3)
Why? This means that you are less likely to get ripped off since Blizzard will be running it versus the third party sites where you are most likely getting scammed from. Why would you think the second choice is better?
Frankly because I don't care if people doing an explicitly forbidden activity get ripped off.
Wrapping it into the game likely means that all the best items will get put in the cash auction house, and the in-game-gold AH will only have lesser items.
I'd love a separate server (cluster) for those who wanted to play in the real money economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard seems absolutely intent on fucking Diablo 3 up in any way they can. The lack of LAN play and persistent Battle.net DRM wasn't already enough?
Re:Nope, not going to play Diablo 3. (Score:5, Interesting)
Realistically lack of LAN play in today's market will only upset geeks, and only a very small subset of them. Battle.NET DRM is indeed annoying in it's own way, but it's also kind of cool - namely in that Blizzard will let you redownload all your games at will. I managed to find my Warcraft III jewel case in a drawer - no clue where the CD is, but it had the CD-key on the case. I logged into my Battle.NET account, registered that game, and poof. Instantly download ability. That's a benefit that I can live with a few negatives to get.
Re: (Score:3)
Except it's not clear why you can't have the best of both worlds. Being perpetually connected and being able to download games with just a CD-Key are not mutually dependent.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
It's an option you don't have to use, you know.
You don't HAVE to sell or buy items, you're free to trade like always.
I can't see how it disrupts your game, you can just simply choose not to participate in the auction house.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the guy who finds the BFG9000 he doesn't need/want is ALWAYS going to put it on the cash market, not the in-game one.
Re:Nope, not going to play Diablo 3. (Score:5, Funny)
If there's a BFG9000 in Diablo 3 then Blizzard really did screw up the game.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem will be when people start ninja-looting items to sell off and you have to fill up your ban/ignore list with morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Let a real money secondary economy evolve, but for the love of Pete don't enshrine it in the game.
Well, if Blizz is set on doing this they should just fracture the community in half from the start. Establish 2 separate servers to play on, one supporting this RMT feature, and the other featuring an in-game economy only. Although the problem with the original D2 economy was that gold was worthless and you always had to barter item-for-item to get anything. So if there is going to be an "in-game" economy at all, they really need a medium of exchange that isn't worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a hardcore D2 gamer, almost failed out of college because of that game, and I've been looking forward to D3 Very Much.
Maybe you are the one who needs to do the rethinking. D2 almost destroyed a very expensive education/life for you and you are looking forward to letting it try again with D3??
You think that's bad? (Score:2)
Max 4 person multiplayer! Region locking for co-op games! No offline single player! No mod support what so ever!
Sure, this RMT auction house is the shitty icing on the shit cake, but lets not lose sight of the complete mess this game is going to be even without this feature.
Source: http://www.destructoid.com/preview-diablo-iii-beta-207543.phtml [destructoid.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, they have these interesting organizational units called "departments" - usually people with specific skillsets are assigned to specific departments to work on specific things related to said skillsets.
I'm fairly certain the people "squabbling" over this are not the ones doing real important work, such as programming, art, testing or such.
The MBAs need something to do while the real work is happening, after all...
Re: (Score:2)
Whichever currency is active in your region.
The Auction House is going to be divided into currency regions.
As opposed to in game currency.
Re: (Score:2)
***Whoosh*** that joke just flew over your head.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very nice thing btw. Since the dollar value has sunken like a stone, everything I buy from abroad is really cheap. Keep up the "international standard" and worthless currency.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, WWII bitchslapped them? Right now there IS no other currency that would work as a reference currency. The Euro is in dire shit, and with the Yuan pegged to the dollar like a pinned butterfly it can't be used. That leaves the Yen, and the Japanese are leveraged out their ass worse than us.
Re: (Score:2)
don't underestimate the Chinese looking at the current debt crisis plays in the US and thinking "WTF, these clowns are controlling our interbank currency". I can imagine a lot of dollars will be sold off as the Chinese reduce their huge dependance on the dollars you sent them, I think they'll buy euros (they've already started) as its hardly more f**** up than the dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now there IS no other currency that would work as a reference currency.
The Special Drawing Rights (XDR) has worked reasonably well as a reference currency for a long time now.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the TFA, the fee is "nominal".
There is a list fee and a completing fee (when item is sold).
You get a few free listings per week.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, it will eliminate a lot of that spam, since if you're looking for something, you have a singular, searchable place to go find it. Unfortunately, it will be replaced by "Yo yo, check out my auction for 4 2 soc 2 skill 20 fcr barb circlet". On the plus side, thousands of Chinese teenagers are about to get new jobs.
Conflict of interest (Score:4, Insightful)
It just lets Blizzard get that percentage rather than an outside company. And why shouldn't they? These people are going to do it one way or another. Why not integrate it into the game?
The general argument is that then Blizzard has a conflict of interest: will future additions and changes to the game focus on increasing fun, or will they focus on increasing transaction profit?
It's easy for any person or organization to say "this is just something on the side and we will always focus on our core intent rather than generating extra profit". This is much harder to do in reality.
It's much easier to restrain oneself from entering a situation with a conflict of interest than getting involved and making questionable choices, perhaps without knowing you are making a tradeoff.
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:4, Interesting)
If this new trading system isn't executed well, people won't use it.
Blizzard will likely make a good real-money trading system. That's not the issue.
The issue is Blizzard will then have an incentive to design the economy around stimulating real-money trading. So the system of drop frequency and the frequency of adding new items to the game could easily be designed to encourage maximum trading. Even if this is not the plan at the start, it will be a factor in every decision they make with game items or the economy, either overtly or in the back of their minds. It could not be otherwise, because as you said, "The whole point of being in business selling games is to make a profit".
The risk is the economy starts looking more like that of a free-to-play game because the developer has the same motives as a free-to-play developer if they are skimming money from transactions. The next step is the developer selling the rare items for a lot of real-world money to increase profits even more, even though this totally ruins an economy based on scarcity. Then the question is, how much will players tolerate? From Blizzard, I think they will tolerate quite a lot.
I have no interest in playing Diablo III myself--I just hate to see video games increasingly turning from something developed to bring challenge and fun to the player and sold at a one-time cost into something explicitly designed at every step to encourage players to pay for satisfaction within a game that can be turned off permanently at any time the developer chooses.
Re: (Score:2)
So, there's a good chance I'll never play the game. And if I did, I wouldn't spend real money to buy stuff for one of my game characters.
Me either. If mere money can give players an advantage, it seriously cheapens the game. I liked D2 because they struck down on those selling items.
I would have liked it even better if they completely disabled rare gifts - let people find their own loot, and if you have great gear, it's because of playing the game, not because of having money.
Re: (Score:2)