Diablo 3 Will Include Player-To-Player Item Selling -- For Real Cash
Diablo 3 Will Include Player-To-Player Item Selling -- For Real Cash
Posted 08/01/2011 at 10:46am
| by Brad Chacos
27
Comments
Print
The last time we checked in with our skeleton-raising Diablo 2 necromancer, the blood of the three Prime Evils – Mephisto, Diablo and Baal – stained the hands of our summoned golem and the world had been saved from sure destruction yet again. That was way back in 2000. Now, over a decade later, we're beginning to hear some solid facts about the upcoming Diablo 3. Or at least facts about in-game transactions. Apparently Blizzard doesn't want to let the item-selling money train plow on without them; the company just announced that a couple of item-selling auction houses would be built right into the game.
Players will be able to spend in-game cash to purchase the unique weapons and armor of their dreams in one of the two auction houses, Joystiq reports. The other auction house is for people who want to spend their real-world dough to outfit their barbarian with the best gear money can buy. Blizzard will charge two "nominal" fees; once when an item is listed for sale, and another time when the item is actually purchased. If you want to "cash out" and move your money off the Blizzard.net servers, you'll also need to pay a fee to an as-yet-unnamed third-party payment provider. Blizzard will offer a limited amount of free transactions for players who want to try out the selling system before ponying up cash.
Image credit: Joystiq.com
Rob Pardo, Blizzard's VP of Game Design, told Joystiq that the move was actually prompted by player requests. There's a thriving underground item-selling scene in online games, and players wanted Blizzard to step in and make the process safer and more secure for Diablo 3. When asked if Blizzard may one day sell items itself, Pardo said "I don't want to come out and say never say never. But at this point we have no plans of selling items to the player that would be power items," although non-game-affecting items – like cosmetic novelty items – are a possibility.
Now the bad news: in order to keep everything on the up-and-up, Blizzard's requiring players to have an active connection to Blizzard.net if they want to play Diablo 3, even if they are playing single-player mode. It's back to Solitaire if a thunderstorm knocks out your Internet, in other words. What do you think: is that a worthwhile trade in exchange for in-game auction houses?
More like this
27
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
bling581
August 02, 2011 at 10:09am
""...although non-game-affecting items – like cosmetic novelty items – are a possibility."
I think he means definately. They already do this with WoW so I find it hard to believe it won't happen with D3.
Righteous Fury
August 02, 2011 at 8:24am
So, not only is the US (and by extension, the whole world) going to pot, but now they want to destroy my fantasy land too?!?!?!?!?!?
A$$HOLES!!!!
gothliciouz
August 02, 2011 at 7:34am
wtf!... active internet connection? wtf is this ubisoft?...i've been waiting for this game with great excitement and now i find out this? ........this suck!!
Kinetic
August 01, 2011 at 6:45pm
I was actually really looking forward to this game until I read all the press releases for it. Auction houses that use real money, no modding allowed, constant internet connection required... it just gets worse and worse. I guess there's always torchlight 2.
Andacious
August 01, 2011 at 4:58pm
if(Blizzard == Steam)
{
Blizzard.Uninstall();
Steam.Uninstall();
}
else
{
Steam.Uninstall();
}
cappo
August 01, 2011 at 3:24pm
If Blizzard ever decides to implement such a concept into World Of Warcraft... there would suddenly be millions of otherwise unemployed people with a job XD .. lol now that's what I call a stimulus package!
dgrmouse
August 01, 2011 at 2:59pm
I skipped SC2 because of this online-only business, and I'll absolutely, positively, skip D3 for it. My single-player gameplay habits are the business of nobody but myself. I despise that so many games are so invasive these days. Just Cause 2, for example, is a single-player game only - ask yourself how they generate the maps with all the deaths on them. How does BioWare know what percentage of users skip cut-scenes in Mass Effect? We PC users are in desperate need of some legislation protecting us from unethical software. 90% of the EULAs I read are so insane that they are invalid in the state in which I live, but that doesn't stop software companies from trying to exercise rights established within.
I have zero sympathy for all the apathetic and sycophantic drivel spewed in defense of this kind of abuse, as it is a huge setback in propagating just software ethics.
dgrmouse
August 01, 2011 at 2:38pm
I'll absolutely, definitely, positively be skipping this one. I never cared for d2 online, and I have no intent to make my playing habits known to Blizzard or anyone else.
fellowleo
August 01, 2011 at 2:12pm
I always found these online economies troubling. If Blizzard sold you a bunch of stuff for real cash, Blizzard is gonna report that in their financials. If you sold that same stuff to someone else and make a hansome profit, do you report that as income?
This has always been the "turn a blind eye" subject for the IRS, whether obtaining items in game that can be traded for hard cash is taxable. Yes, I'm a buzz killer.
alexc
August 01, 2011 at 1:20pm
I was a seller of items in Diablo 2, which as a side effect boosted my eBay feedback by about 150 points. Since Blizzard began cracking down on the selling of virtual goods it has been a lot more nerve-wracking to sell in these spaces. If Blizzard is handling the commerce then i wont have to worry about things like chargebacks or scams. I don't mind Blizzard taking a cut because someone is going to take a cut whether it is Paypal, MMOBay, or Blizzard.
Playing these games is fun, but once you beat the game many times over the new game is finding ways to generate wealth. In WoW is was selling gear during farm runs so your guild could fund the push through the next raid content. In Diablo the wealth game for advanced players will pay out in real world money, which I think is a fantastic idea.
Andacious
August 01, 2011 at 4:54pm
I agree, as if blizzard didn't have enough money and ruin enough lives...
someuid
August 01, 2011 at 12:36pm
This press release certainly did nothing to excite me about D3. It feels 'tainted' with corporate greed (microtransactions) and buzz-word chasing (social networking), while trying to convince me its all for the better.
As for this comment ""I want to play Diablo III on my laptop in a plane, but, well, there are other games to play for times like that," said Pardo." found here. http://www.dailytech.com/Diablo+III+to+be+Online+Only+Will+Allow+Players+to+BuySell+Loot+for+Cash/article22311.htm
Woh. Wtf. Who is this guy to decide what are appropirate times I should be playing which game? That seems pretty draconian and Scrooge-like. I hope he reconsiders and offers at least a temporary off-line mode for those days Internet access is unavailable or simply not working or, heaven forbid, I want to play some D3 on an airplane for a few hours.
CaptainFabulous
August 01, 2011 at 2:18pm
Yeah, the arrogance is sickening. Who the hell are you to tell me how and when I can play a game I paid for and now OWN?
And I love how they try to pass it off as something we want, or something that's good for us even though we don't realize it yet. Seriously? I'm not a child, thanks. I know exactly what I want, and I can smell bullshit from a mile away.
I can tell you exactly what I DON'T want: to be monitored by Battle.net whenever I play a game or EVER be in a position where I can't play a game I bought due to the lack of an Internet connection.
EPIC FAIL. Thanks but no thanks Blizzard. I'll just wait for Torchlight 2.
Keith E. Whisman
August 01, 2011 at 12:31pm
This is going to bring prostitution to the virtual world.
Gezzer
August 01, 2011 at 9:21pm
I think Sims Online already did that.
Come to think of it, I wonder if that abortion of a game is still running.
MTD324
August 01, 2011 at 11:52am
Here's an idea....
Only allow people to sell items found while playing multi-player.
That way you dont have to worry about people cheating and selling rare items they didnt earn.
While also allowing single-player mode to function offline (cheat all you want).
I'm sorry but this seems like common sense to me......
Caladahis
August 01, 2011 at 11:21am
Blizzard is finding new and new ways to keep making more money on their games. The worst part is that people actually pay!
Now do not get me wrong, I love blizzard games and I am a long time fan, I have been anticipating Diablo 3 for a long time now and cannot wait to buy it along with the SC2 xpac.
But back on topic, I do not think it is worth the trade. It is nice to be able to play diablo solo during times where I am travelling and do not have decent internet. That is what was nice about SC2 where I could play the campaign and challenges while ina hotel or down at the grandparents house, where they do not have internet at all.
I do think the in game AH will work out ok, as can be seen by the WoW AH for in game currency. But it is flawed, people will learn to farm certain things and the in game economy will go to shit, but hey thats part of the game I guess.
But if this is how blizz wants to make the game, then so be it...not much these forums will do to change their minds lol
stradric
August 01, 2011 at 12:08pm
> the in game economy will go to shit
There is no in-game economy like WoW. The auction house is a separate entity. People farming for items will increase the supply which will drive down demand and cost will be lower. It's a good thing.
Exarkun1138
August 01, 2011 at 11:19am
After a decade delay in getting Diablo III, we are now REQUIRED to have an account and open Internet connection with Blizzard just to play the damned game in single player mode? That is TFBS!!!! Now I may have to rethink even buying D3, even though I'm a huge fan of the first two games! I may just stick with Titan Quest and Torchlight for now.
wolfpack
August 01, 2011 at 11:14am
I'd say it's a worthwhile exchange! If Blizzard steps in to make sure that their customer's are participating in safe transactions of in-game items, I don't see a problem with requiring a Battle.net connection.
al360ex
August 01, 2011 at 11:23am
Well, let's say you're out camping in the middle of nowhere and want to play your favorite game on your laptop...what do you do ? You're stuck. And it sucks.
The thing you'll have to do is download the crack that will allow you to play offline. I know it's what I'll do.
stradric
August 01, 2011 at 12:12pm
One might ask "Why are you playing a video game while camping?" Roast some marshmallows, take a hike or go fishing like a normal person.
TerribleToaster
August 01, 2011 at 11:22am
On this account I believe you are right (requiring a constant internet connection to ensure safe transactions). However, I question the need of the item exchange program having to run from within Diablo 3. If you had them as two seperate, but interacting, programs you could maintain offline gameplay while still maintaining a close control over online transactions of items.
stradric
August 01, 2011 at 12:10pm
Um, no. It's not the transactions that are the concern. It's how the items were acquired. The best way to guarantee the items were acquired legitimately is to be connected to battle.net.
Caladahis
August 01, 2011 at 11:53am
Exactly...I mean Blizzard has this set up with their online store. You can buy in game items for WoW and SC2....why not make that site look better and set it up in a way where you can only get to the Diablo store from battle.net.
It really isn't that difficult and they have majority of the infrastructure in place already.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy1 day 3 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj1 day 3 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E3 days 1 hour ago
