B2W?

Not exactly news. They've already been saying for a long time that they'll take a cut off AH profits. It's part of the reason I doubt they're going to be selling anything in there, it's not needed.

However, despite having that option, nothing is stopping you from just playing the game and earning what you get in it :)

And for others who feel they'd rather trade what they earned for other stuff they didn't get themselves they can do that as well.

Honestly I'm rather glad Blizzard have the in-game auction house. They are a company who's games get a lot of out of game trading for real money and its a difficult market with a lot of scammers around - from those that just never deliver the goods to those who attempt to steal accounts or free items.

Bringing the market in-game allows Blizzard to at least provide a safe way for these trades to occur rather than hiding their head in the sand. And if they take a cut out of the profits I've no problem there - the concept that someone who provides a platform for trade makes some income out of the deal is fair and established.



That said until they drop the online demand for singleplayer I won't be getting the game. I'm hoping its like SC2 in that its only a release attempt to reduce piracy during the opening launch (ie the highest profiting point of the game) and that after a few months its patched out (it was for SC2).

B2W = Buy 2 Win

See Korean MMOs, and some others, including of late, STO

That is insane.
15% charge for non-gear items (gear items have a base $1 charge) with another 15% cut for them to transfer it?

Ah, I'm more familiar with P2W, Pay to Win :)

True in a way I guess. Although, to win something you would have to be competing, which, at least for the moment isn't true yet. (not sure how PVP will be handled although I believe they said it was still 3 months off? (or that might have been Warlock, not sure >.<))

That said, contrary to the usual P2W stuff, if you buy anything here, you'll be buying it off other players, which means it's all stuff that you *could* have gotten in game yourself, or traded for ingame gold.

To me, the worst part of Pay 2 Win is if you're actually forced to pay it to get it. (although extreme tedious grinds to do the same thing do qualify to some extent)

Even money says they do the thing where you have to buy keys to chests. It destroys game economies, btw.

That wouldn't make sense really since loot drops will already be driving their income.

And I assume you mean TF2? That economy was hardly destroyed by it. In fact it gave it quite the boost. (You can argue whether you like what the economy became, but it's an active one nonetheless)

No I mean STO and the Korean MMOs

I actually played quite a lot of Blizzard's games back in the days. WC1, WC2, D1, SC1, D2, WC3.

When SC2 was announced I was extremely excited. However, when I discovered the pricing system and the always-online requirement, I totally abandoned the idea of ever playing that game. Aside from not having enough computing power I do not agree with Blizzard's policy. I have no interest in MMORPGs like WoW and so on and thus I have no interest in SC2/D3 as well. Sure co-op can be great, but when I want my single-player experience I want it to be single-player, not some sort of online-emulation.

The most interesting thing, however, is that I do not feel like I am missing something anymore. I mean, SC1 was a blast, but now we also have W40K DoW series. D1 and 2 were really great games (and D1 was very-very advanced for its time), but now we also have the Torchlight series. I think Blizzard just does not want to realize there is more and more competition and still thinks it is the only company in the world making "great" RTS/Hack-And-Slash RPGs.

Same goes for computing power: DoW1 series can run on very modest PCs (and the in-game engine was extremely flexible already at the start of the series); Torchlight can run on any toaster you might have at hand. Now WHY would I want to pay extra cash for an upgrade, buy a game at full AAA price and "enjoy" all the "new additions" like always-online DRM and in-game real-money auction, if I can already get an in-game experience that is "good enough" for me with for much less money?

Surely, some opponents would say SC2 and D3 are "much better", "more polished" etc. But for me Torchlight and W40K are "good enough". :)

SC2 actually scales down pretty well for a low min requirement.
It's certainly playable on a not top of the line computer

Also they took out the online requirement for SC2 :)

Same here. The online-only thing (since I can still play "by myself") by itself I might have tolerated if I liked/wanted a game enough. But I still dislike the Real-ID (yes they can still see your real name on Friends lists at times). I played WoW before the real-id thing hence I already had an account...(I stopped playing WoW around the time RealId was done) so I did try the D3 beta.

Didn't care for it much. Combat was fine...envisioned replayability, not so much. Just found the whole design a bit bland and too simplified even for an ARPG. See no reason to replay a new chr. for sake of trying something "different" and seems like it'll end up being a game where people have their maxed out chrs and then sit around waiting for DLC's.

Could be because I've become too used to these types of games and thus D3 no longer feels unique and interesting, but whatever. Point is, wasn't good enough for me to overlook the things Blizzard/Activision are doing that I strongly dislike. Disappointing.

Maybe if it ever comes down in price to 20-30 bucks...maybe.

Well that is at least some good news. :) I remember when I saw that one should use "guest pass" for 30 days of offline play, I just told myself "no way am I going to pay for something, which I will only be able to use on a temporary basis as if I have not bought it".

But than again see how their attitude fires back? They actually improved some stuff, but since I already stopped caring long time ago I did not even know it.

Ah, in that case you could well be right. I'm not familiar with those :)