"Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.biz]

[SPCTRE]

MMO Diablo III will offer players the chance to use real world currency to trade game items.
The service will be on an item by item basis via an eBay style auction house system and entirely optional. Gold based auction houses will be available for players who don't wish to spend their money in-game.
"It was definitely a design decision," the game's lead designer Jay Wilson told Eurogamer.

Players can purchase gold, weapons, armour and runestones via their registered Battle.net accounts. Blizzard will not sell "game play affecting" items, and stated it has no plans to post items directly to the auction house, leaving trading to the players.
"Trading is not very good in Diablo, and yet it's a game about trading," explained Wilson. "Trading is the way you get the best items in Diablo. And yet there was no trading mechanism to speak of... We wanted to focus on filling that hole."

When selling, players can use the money they earn to purchase other other Diablo III items through the auction house, purchase Battle.net products, such as World Of Warcraft subscriptions, or claim the cash through third party services.

For each item sold for real currency players will be charged an unspecified "nominal fixed transaction fee" by Blizzard, which will vary by region and whether or not the item sold. Players will also be charged a fee for withdrawing sales proceeds from their Battle.net account.
Wilson denied that this was the main motivation behind the decision.
"Certainly there's an economic element to the auction house for us, but it came first and foremost as: what do we want to do for the players? What service can we possibly offer that would make the game experience better?"

"If we make money on it that's great, we're a business, we want to make money. But not at the expense of the customers - but because we've offered them something that was worth their money."

Blizzard further explained its motivations in an official statement, citing player behaviour and security.
"The item-based nature of Diablo game play has always lent itself to an active trade-based ecosystem, and a significant part of this trade has been conducted through unsecure third-party organisations."

"This has led to numerous customer-service and game-experience issues that we've needed to account for. Our primary goal with the Diablo III auction house system is for it to serve as the foundation for a player-driven economy that's safe, fun, and accessible for everyone."

Blizzard has said it will not be introducing the system to its other MMORPG, World Of Warcraft, due to differences in the game play. It also clarified that it has no plans to provide support for the auction house system to mobile devices.

Diablo III still has no official release date, but is currently recruiting players for a beta test. Diablo II was released in 2000, but still has a large online audience.

[ Source ]

No surprise here whatsoever. Blizzard's WoW division subtly started introducing money-for-items type services a long, long time ago.

Blizzard would be downright negligent not to offer a service for which there is a clear and significant demand.

Anybody surprised by this development must have been living under a rock for the last five years and/or be fucking stupid.

 

[Mr Silver]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

Hopefully this will put an end to gold farming. I'm also hoping this won't be one of these games where its ridiculously rare to acquire an item in game that its more beneficial to buy it. Facebook has set the standard with all these micro transaction game.

 

[darthraidr]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

i've played a bit of d3 at various events, and item drops were plentiful. purples, oranges... i suspect the item selling and buying will only appeal to a fraction of players. if you just want to play through on your own, or with friends, you probably wont need to touch the AH (unless you want to sell items you pick up).

and that's the part i like. Instead of vending items i dont want, or cant use to some NPC vendor, or disenchanting it for crafting materials, i can list it for money. (though it'll probably only be pennies i'm making, if anything at all)

 

[PurpleLady]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

Blizzard's way to combat jsp and other trading sites for money. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I for one still just love to play D2.

 

[Kelthaz]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

Fortunately I only play Diablo in single-player, so this won't affect me.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

So, Diablo 3's an MMO now? First I've heard of it.

 

[SPCTRE]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

So, Diablo 3's an MMO now? First I've heard of it.

The term has seen inflationary use over the last few years. Diablo II would be classified as an MMO as well these days.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

So, Diablo 3's an MMO now? First I've heard of it.

The term has seen inflationary use over the last few years. Diablo II would be classified as an MMO as well these days.

A game should only be considered an MMO if it has no meaningful single-player mode, among other things.

This is why I wouldn't classify Minecraft as an MMO, even though it could be played as one.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

So, Diablo 3's an MMO now? First I've heard of it.

The term has seen inflationary use over the last few years. Diablo II would be classified as an MMO as well these days.

I certainly wouldn't. It was a single-player game with multiplayer content. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the multiplayer didn't add very much to the gameplay as you were basically just playing the singleplayer content with multiple people. Calling it an MMO is quite a stretch. I'd even go as far as saying that any game that requires anyone to use a lobby to host a game rather than connecting to a centralized server isn't an MMO.

 

[Itisnotlogical]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

Not especially surprised. I have the feeling that this is going to be one of those games where it says it's free, but keeps dropping "subtle" hints that you should add more and more money to a game that's already going to be more than $40 upon release. And there's no doubt that people who pay more money for in-game items are going to render free-players in multiplayer hopelessly irrelevant. Still, I'm not especially surprised.

 

[SPCTRE]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

So, Diablo 3's an MMO now? First I've heard of it.

The term has seen inflationary use over the last few years. Diablo II would be classified as an MMO as well these days.

I certainly wouldn't. It was a single-player game with multiplayer content. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the multiplayer didn't add very much to the gameplay as you were basically just playing the singleplayer content with multiple people. Calling it an MMO is quite a stretch. I'd even go as far as saying that any game that requires anyone to use a lobby to host a game rather than connecting to a centralized server isn't an MMO.

I agree with you completely. I'm not a fan of loosely throwing the "MMO" term around and slapping it on any game that has a multiplayer mode, but that's how things are today. (Even in some of the so called specialized press publications.)

 

[Owain Taggart]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

The term has seen inflationary use over the last few years. Diablo II would be classified as an MMO as well these days.

I certainly wouldn't. It was a single-player game with multiplayer content. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the multiplayer didn't add very much to the gameplay as you were basically just playing the singleplayer content with multiple people. Calling it an MMO is quite a stretch. I'd even go as far as saying that any game that requires anyone to use a lobby to host a game rather than connecting to a centralized server isn't an MMO.

I agree with you completely. I'm not a fan of loosely throwing the "MMO" term around and slapping it on any game that has a multiplayer mode, but that's how things are today. (Even in some of the so called specialized press publications.)

Exactly, and the sad thing is, I don't even think it's the press-releases that have made it out to sound that way either. It's likely someone from a site that saw RPG and Multiplayer in proximity to each other and assumed it must be an MMO. Unless Diablo III is completely different than the two previous games, and I doubt it will, I don't think it should be considered an MMO. An MMO in my eyes requires a persistent world where people can freely come and go, which is in stark contrast to the nature of the Diablo games, with its focus on randomly generated dungeons. The games have more in common with the Dungeon Siege series of top-down hack & slash gameplay, although correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think the Diablo series focuses very much on what's beyond the dungeons whereas Dungeon Siege has you trek across the landscape and resembles more an MMO than Diablo does. But anyway, Blizzard has WoW for that.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

Exactly, and the sad thing is, I don't even think it's the press-releases that have made it out to sound that way either. It's likely someone from a site that saw RPG and Multiplayer in proximity to each other and assumed it must be an MMO.

We've been trained to assume that "MMO" is short for "MMORPG", but really, "MMO" just means that it's "massively multiplayer" and "online", and Diablo III seems to fit that description.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

Exactly, and the sad thing is, I don't even think it's the press-releases that have made it out to sound that way either. It's likely someone from a site that saw RPG and Multiplayer in proximity to each other and assumed it must be an MMO.

We've been trained to assume that "MMO" is short for "MMORPG", but really, "MMO" just means that it's "massively multiplayer" and "online", and Diablo III seems to fit that description.

True, I guess there's that, but even then, I wouldn't give it the MMO tag. It alone assumes that you'd be able to play with tons of people at the same time, but how many people will you be able to play with in a given game of Diablo 3? Not very many, I'd wager, because at its core, it's still largely a single-player game, unless this one introduces some multiplayer-only content.

 

[Deks]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

If Blizzard keeps up with the latest news on Diablo 3, it would appear people who buy it will need a constant internet connection (same like it was for EA's Assassins Creed: 2).
Blizzard's explanation on this is that they want to allow people who play the game in SP to be able to come online with their done characters without creating a new one (and it's also a way of preventing cheats?) and oh yes... 'lowering piracy' was a throwaway line as well.

I can tell you I'm not a supporter of such draconian DRM's.
Why would I need a constant Internet connection (which is flaky at best) for a SP?
I'm sorry, but that is simply too idiotic.

 

[Idran]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

So, Diablo 3's an MMO now? First I've heard of it.

The term has seen inflationary use over the last few years. Diablo II would be classified as an MMO as well these days.

A game should only be considered an MMO if it has no meaningful single-player mode, among other things.

This is why I wouldn't classify Minecraft as an MMO, even though it could be played as one.

Wouldn't that also rule out Phantasy Star Online? It was blatantly an MMO, but it certainly had a meaningful single-player mode.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

The term has seen inflationary use over the last few years. Diablo II would be classified as an MMO as well these days.

A game should only be considered an MMO if it has no meaningful single-player mode, among other things.

This is why I wouldn't classify Minecraft as an MMO, even though it could be played as one.

Wouldn't that also rule out Phantasy Star Online? It was blatantly an MMO, but it certainly had a meaningful single-player mode.

I think so. Rare is the game that can work well as both a single-player game and an MMO--usually, something is getting the short end of the stick.

There is also the "massively" part of MMO to think about. Lots of games are multiplayer, but not "massively" so.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

A game should only be considered an MMO if it has no meaningful single-player mode, among other things.

This is why I wouldn't classify Minecraft as an MMO, even though it could be played as one.

Wouldn't that also rule out Phantasy Star Online? It was blatantly an MMO, but it certainly had a meaningful single-player mode.

I think so. Rare is the game that can work well as both a single-player game and an MMO--usually, something is getting the short end of the stick.

There is also the "massively" part of MMO to think about. Lots of games are multiplayer, but not "massively" so.

Exactly, and well put. I think the only way a single player game is ever going to get to be called an MMO is if it's seamlessly integrated and designed to be. Test Drive Unlimited is a good example of this. It's primarily a single player driving game, set in a multiplayer world that you can drive around in and meet other people and drive around with. Very well designed for what it was intended to do and was called an MMO. And the the upcoming Old Republic MMO is unique in that while they're focusing on a singleplayer experience by giving people a strong story and full voiceovers more commonly found in singleplayer games, it's still going to be hooked into the online aspect as an MMO.

 

[SPCTRE]

Re: "Blizzard introduces real currency to Diablo III" [gamesindustry.b

A game should only be considered an MMO if it has no meaningful single-player mode, among other things.

This is why I wouldn't classify Minecraft as an MMO, even though it could be played as one.

Wouldn't that also rule out Phantasy Star Online? It was blatantly an MMO, but it certainly had a meaningful single-player mode.

I think so. Rare is the game that can work well as both a single-player game and an MMO--usually, something is getting the short end of the stick.

There is also the "massively" part of MMO to think about. Lots of games are multiplayer, but not "massively" so.

Yeah, "massively" is exactly the part of the term that doesn't mesh well with the realities of Diablo's multiplayer.