My biggest remaining concern about D3 is how Blizzard will manipulate their own economy. They've been drooling over the profits reaped by 3rd party sellers for years. While I agree this was the only way they could effectively combat it.......the fact they felt they needed to legitimize it is what concerns me.

My thinking goes like this: if 3rd party sales didn't really hurt the game play, then it's about the money, not the principle. If it's about the money, and not the principle, then Blizzard has no counter motivation not to manipulate their own game for money. Remember, there's no redeeming principle in a game that isn't subject to market forces in their mind. If that's true, then there's no principle to stick to, to stop the market from manipulating the game instead of vicea versa.

I honestly don't trust Blizzard or Kotick to the put the game first anymore. The higher the rates of acceptability among players that the economy has, the fewer reasons Blizzard has to keep it separated from gameplay by meaningful measures. Toward the end of WoW I started to feeling like the whole gear system was so over-glutted with options and gimmies, in an effort to get us to see all the content, that it really stopped motivating me to do shit in game. I'd really hate for Diablo to become like that too, because there's never been enough going on in Diablo without the loot to make it incredibly exciting. Loot is the fulcrum on which most of the game operates and the temptation to screw with that by Blizzard could have some very large ripple effects, both monetarily and how players ultimately feel about their game. To me, Diablo 3 is quickly becoming forgettable as an average gamer's game, and is going on toward notoriety as the premiere online gambling and e-peen extension experience.

Once the arenas in D3 get rolling and the e-sports comes into it...yeah....Diablo 3 is going to become a poster child for "the next revolution." A digital amusement park and casino for adults as the physical Disney (or WoW) is for kids. The price of admission is your box purchase and once you step inside lots of blinking lights tell you THIS could be your chance to make it big! Want spectator sports to bet on? Go to the Arena! Want to win a big cash prize? Participate in the Arena! Want a financial return on your mind numbing obsession to complete Hell level difficulty? Blizzard will turn your digital tokens back into cash for you! (At a reasonable fee, of course.) Are you a Chinese prisoner forced to play Diablo 3 (once you're done in the fields that is) to pay your debt to society? Well tough shit, Huang, you're part of the business now whether you like it or not!

I mean, if this is the future of gaming when you have an internet connection, a whole freaking theme park worth of things to spend your money on AFTER you bought the game.....then people can have the future, I'll be retreating back to a way simpler point of view where games are fucking games and not extensions of the rat race we live in.

Third party sales do hurt the game, because they're among the most frequent sources of account hacks and infection. Both of which are bad for the game (and cost companies a fortune in support costs to deal with). Gold buying for example is the primary driver of account hacking in WoW.

Hyperbole much?

I'm generally very against the cash AH for many reasons. However when it comes to Chinese gold/item farmers I consider this to be very bad news for them rather then good. With everyone having the ability to sell items for cash, I anticipate that the influx of items is going to dramatically drive prices down to the point where they just are not worth the effort to sell professionally by even the poorest standards. Even as it stands now, The rate of return for gold selling in WoW is so low to only be worthwhile to someone in a poor country, and that's with the black market nature of the deals dramatically driving the prices up.

Again though this doesn't mean that I'm in favor of this change, in fact I generally hate it. I'd rather let the gold/item seller skeep making their black market deals then have one of the primary forms of getting new equipment be spending a dollar at the AH. I fear that this will have a dramatic impact on the non cash economy of the game. And of course I hate in just on principal.

But at the same time I am curious to see how it will turn out in the long run, and I'm interested enough in Diablo that it won't stop me from buying the game.

Access to private user data is what motivates them; credit cards and passwords to email accounts are just as valuable as login data to their favorite MMO. It reads like you're trying to use hackers as a complete explanation for the rise of the AH in D3 and I think it has less to do with it ultimately than far more likely explanations (money.)

Agreed, so why try and say that's Blizzard's motivation? It ain't even close. They want control of the money, they could care less if they're saving people's accounts.

Actually, Australians have seen the price of games increase dramatically.  SEGA Master System games retailed for AU$80.00.  At that point in time, the AU Dollar bought around US$0.65.  Nintendo 64 Games retailed for AU$100.00.  At that point in time, the AU dollar bought around US$0.85.  Xbox 360 games retail for around AU$110.00.  The AU Dollar currenty buys US$1.01.

The reason prices haven't inflated is because companies are still posting billion dollar profits.  They haven't needed to charge more because in ye olde days, games made more per sale than they do now; a game selling a million copies was a massive success.  Now, they sell millions of copies - anything less than 10 million copies sold is considered merely "profitable".

Hardly.  Do you think the Games Industry has 'taken one for the team'?  The Games Industry is the most profitable entertainment industry in the world; Universal would kill to have the profit margins of Activision Blizzard.
They make shorter games because development time has been slashed to accomodate rapid fire release schedules.  A game used to take roughly four years to develop; now, that's considered dragging your feet.  Two years is the average, and that release schedule often causes the under-cooked games we see today.  Instead of making one 20 hour game, they make three 6 hours games.  That's three times as many sales, three times as much profit.  It's also three times as much for the consumer.  See Starcraft II.

Gamers aren't "driving the demand" for these trends in a conscenice manner; Gamers are simply buying games.  A lot of people who bought Assassin's Creed 2 for the PC didn't even realse it had the horrendous DRM.  It's success led Ubisoft to conclude gamer's have accepted the always online requirement.
Blizzard Entertainment now have their own Always On DRM requirement for all of their titles.  They also have micro-transactions built into all games, regardless of the impact on the end user experience.  Those games will still sell, because Gamers want to play them.  However, the industry will look at that success and say "Ok, gamers want microtransactions.  Gamers want always on DRM.  Gamers want facebook intergration" and so on.

No one wants to pay US$110.00 for a game.  In Australia, that's the going rate.  No one wants to pay US$200.00 for a game, however with all the DLC and microtransactions, that's the real cost of the full game.  It's not because Gamers want to pay it - it's because they Gamers live to play games, and Publishers and Developers take advantage of this.  See Blizzard Entertainment's "You want what we have, so we can make you do whatever we want" current strategy.
Gamers will put up with just about anything to play those new releases, and it's the biggest releases, the most hyped games and the most polished games that have the Always On DRM, the microtransactions and the seemingly endless wave of multiplayer-breaking DLC.  Gamers are being taken advantage of.  It's not players wanting these things that's driving this trend; it's greed.  Systemic greed.

I havent played D2 for a couple years, but a solution to one of those problems...dont play in public games.  Make your own game, use a pword and collect some people to play.

Yeah the infinite Baal runs were kinda ridiculous.

Sentient species taste better...

 

The topic of PC Gaming being in decline (or not) is all over the net.  Has been for years, and continues to be.  Talked about by developers and publishers.  Debated by gamers and reported by writers.  You can even find references in popular entertainment media.   It's on the minds of many.  In the past I've been doubtful despite reading reports of increased digital sales not matching the decreased retail sales.  But for ME, PC Gaming has recently declined to near death.  Buggy releases on the rise.  Game content increasingly decreasing.  New draconian DRM still being implemented despite a vocal outcry!  I, as in ME, not you or them or what was once us; now see PC Gaming as being raped and pillaged to it's death.  That's how it is for me.  If you disagree, more power to you.  I'm not speaking for you.  I'm speaking for me.  PC Gaming is on a steep decline.  Hollow broken games, confounded with unacceptable DRM.  

I still hold a little hope for Heroes of Might and Magic VI due for release this October.  It's a wait and see.  But Ubisoft appears to have heard the DRM outcry.  Or at least they remove the online requirement for HoM&M6.  But according to CelestialHeavens.com, HoM&M6 with be entirely DRM free.  In its place is Conflux.  Gamers can play the single player campaigns offline.  But if they want to play multi-player OR play single player with extras, then they have to sign into Conflux. Once in. the gamer has access to some nifty Skype features, Chat, Profiles, Forums, Hints and all that other social stuff that many people crave.  Signing in also grants you bonuses to single player mode.  Which I am hesitant towards.  How do they balance SP with the Conflux Dynasty bonuses?  Does the game become too easy with Conflux, or too hard without?  Hows that gonna work?  

I like the stated approach that Ubisoft has taken with this game.  If you want the social network, you log in.  If not, you don't.  My only concern is all those bonus features you get for playing through Conflux,  Things which affect your heroes strength and weapons etc.  Is this gonna be another buy power with real world money kindof thing?  Hows the gameplay experience/balance work with bonuses only begotten externally through Conflux (and possibly money)?  But I very much like the sign in if you want it, don't if you don't.  I'll wait and see what the gamers have to say about it.  But this one title is a small glimmer of hope for me.  If it takes off (sans the pay for power bit), then maybe PC Gaming might follow a direction I'm willing to go.

 

 

 steam.  This issue is so polarized that it makes people stupid!  I've no problem with the Steamworks functionality.  Those features aren't real high on my personal priority list, but I absolutely see why some people adore them.  I respect these peoples joy! I am seriously happy they have these things!  I really am.  I don't look down on them for wanting these things.  But people attack my opinion as if I make a personal affront to them.  Hell, I might enjoy these things as well, if not for the costs.  I'm just not willing to pay the costs to access those things.  I don't accept being forced to run games through a 3rd party client.  I don't accept forced updates.  I don't accept what I see as a high probability to be locked out of my game due to some glitch. I don't accept a 3rd party having control over my license to play.  And more.  What I do_want_is the ability to update at a time of my choosing.  And I want to run multiple versions of a game when mods compel me to do so.  I want to install the games in the directory of my choice.  And when I click "play" I want to go right to the game.... not to some 3rd party watchdog who holds me back for updates and proof of purchase.  Or who's had a bad hair day and can't connect to his bosses so he can't let me through the gates.

We'll see how Ubisofts Conflux works out.  That to me seems an ideal compromise.  Allows people their social networking without forcing it on those who don't.  You use it only when, and if, you want it.  And more.  We'll see.

 

 

One more thing.....

Gamers are chicken livered sluts!!! 

You've got no fracking backbone!  And you act like dogs lovingly accepting whatever scrap your master offers.

The publishers will get away with everything you allow.  If you buy into their cheap assed crap, and their dastardly DRM schemes... it's only going to get worse.  The crap factor WILL increase until a threshold is reached.   Does anyone really doubt this?  If you don't buy their shit, then they will modify their method until you do.  So it's your fault.  You have the power.  You spend the money.  You alter your spending and they will change.  But you've all been a bunch of chicken livered sluts.  You gotta change your buying habits before they'll change their selling habits.  It's all on you.  So grow a backbone will you.  And stop being such a slut!  

disclaimer:  The preceding editorial was spoken with tongue in cheek. The tone was meant as satire, but for the purpose of delivering relevant content.  The author takes no responsibility for any fan boyz rage.   

 

 

Sorry FadedC, I didn't explain my position very clearly.  Firstly, I never bought the Map Packs.  However, they were made along side the retail game that I did buy.  On the business side, the retail product recoups the primary development budget - this included the development of the DLC Map Packts.  When people buy Crysis 2, they're paying for the development of the game, and the development of the Map Packs, but they're going getting the game.  Had the resources for the Map Packs been used to further develop the game, it would have shipped with more content in the retail box.
What I meant by "had" to pay for them is that Crytek charged for the Map Packs - you don't get them for free, so if you want them (and they are pretty terrible, so don't let anyone pay for them) you have to pay for them.  However, you already paid for them when you bought the game - as the sale of the game covered the development costs for the DLC Map Packs.  You're essentially paying for the work that went into those Map Packs twice, and the Developer is pocketing the difference.


Well, technically the price of the game has gone up - because they're now selling the game in pieces.  To explain it better, see the below comic:

We are, essentially, paying the full price for only a portion of the content, as every major release today has DLC.  This isn't "extra content", it's content that was created and held back, so that it could be charged for.


I understand, and it's a viable point - however, the cheap digitial game is really the exception here: the digital prices for most new releases is equal that of the retail counterpart - despite the fact that it costs less to provide it.

The major problem is probably education.  I work in the legal/financial industry, so I'm aware of all the goings on to a higher degree than the average customer.  The fact that I have to explain a decent amount of stuff for some people to even understand that there is an issue is reason enough to explain why the industry is going the way it is.
Activision Blizzard, EA Games and Ubisoft are leading the way; charge as much as you can for as little as you can, and riddle anything people want to buy with microtransactions and piece-meal-day-one-DLC to make a profit off of their misunderstand of the goings-on.

Personally, I find the current state of the Video Game industry disgusting.  The movie industry is creatively bankrupt, relying on remakes and reboots to keep studios alive rather than taking a chance on unknown properties.  The music industry is now more about selling an image than music, though to be fair its been this way for a long time.  Video games, however, are the only industry that is actively working to disolve the rights of their customers while having the balls to charge more money for less content, and claim its what people want.

Funny how these conversations never lead anywhere. After the comment "hyperbole much?" the response gave a link to a news article telling about an interesting story about chinese prisoners forced to play games. The response, instead of learning from this, the response from the original poster was to ignore and move on defending his cause.

Why do you guys bother? Discuss things instead of arguing. Learn, talk, comment, teach. Eventually it'll pay off.

Tridus & Zehdon. MAN! You guys definetly like to post, that's for sure

 

 

Zehdon,

You need to post currency comparisons in euro since few people knows the value of Aus $.

These fullprice releases and this DLC talk sounds a bit strange since it doesn't concern me anymore. I only buy games via STEAM summer & wintersales and for less than 20euro if I buy elsewhere. In fact, the last fullprice game I bought (and heavily regret) is StarCraft II Collectors Edition in January for 70euro. Before that it was Galactic Civilizations II back in 2003 or so (which I also regret. Starting to see a pattern here )

 

Finally, your countrys gameprices are completely screwed up!   Who's in charge of that??   That anti-game lawyer who got banned from working??   Or was that in the US ?   You need a new islandcouncil to set things straight

 

 

Tridus,

You're simply the best arguer here. I need to add you as an internetfriend

I'm surprised that people don't seem to play singleplayer anymore but on second thought, that must be because those games that track gametime are MP games like Call of Duty and StarCraft II.

I like both multi and single, but for different things:

 

Length of a game, stability, difficulty, use of cooperation, fun, and the other players all determine this for me. 

ex: Sins can be short enough and is fun even you are losing. Most players don't ragequit. Its stable and Comp stomp is a viable option. Perfect multiplayer. 

ex: Civ5 crashes all the time, super long, so sad if you are losing because it has exponential effects. All player ragequit before the end. Comp stomps itself. Terrible multiplayer, but single player is pretty fun. 

 

I think that Elemental: FE is smart to avoid MP until they can get some of the above categories down. The only one WoM had was very dedicated players. 

I wish Starcraft 2 could just go away for another ten years. Its just too quick. Reminds me of that song by Madonna, "Like a Virgin."

Not to be rude, but you dismissed my position while using your own as justification as to why my position should be dismissed.  Can I now not turn around and do the same thing again in an endless cycle?  The fact is that - from my point of view - the cost of video games has increased dramatically.  While this might not be true for you or your countrymen, the fact that this has occured across the entire spectrum of gaming for every Australian means it has occured and cannot be dismissed.


We'll need to agree on some standards to discuss this.  Starcraft II is a single platform title exclusive to the lowest selling platform (generally speaking) so it's level of success is the exception the rule.  Halo 3 is a similar position, only on a platform that typically sees higher sale numbers.
Titles like Mass Effect, Darksiders, Final Fantasy, Burnout, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Crysis 2, Grand Theft Auto, Skate, Saint's Row, LEGO Star Wars (and all other Lego titles), and basically every multiplatform title approach the 3 million sales mark fairly easily.  Nearly all modern day development houses are designed with multiplatform development in mind; this reduces the amount of effort required to produce multiplatform titles substantially.  While Halo 3 might have 'only' sold 10,000,000 copies, Assassin's Creed 2 banked close to 10,000,000.  Call of Duty doubles that on basically every release.
The 'base line' for success has dramatically increased.

A valid point; though, to be fair, Activision Blizzard pushed the price of baseline games up with Modern Warfare 2.  The RRP in Australia for a new release console titles was $100.00.  Modern Warfare 2 was the first to debut at $110.00.  The new companies in Australia covered it's release partally due to this; now this price tag is standard for all new console releases.  They're pushing prices up.


I didn't say games of yester-year were bug free, and I didn't say games of today were buggier; I said they were undercooked.  Proof of cencepts.  If its successful, then they pour some real effort into the sequel.  Most new releases today are merely origin stories with cliff hanger endings.  But that's really a different issue altogether.
Starcraft II was significantly worse than Starcraft 1 in all elements not relating to visual presentation and connectivity.  From a gameplay perspective, they sped things up and brought the game to current industry UI standards... and that's about it.  The single player campaign features roughly 2/3s filler content, most of which was fairly throw away stuff.  And the story - my god, the story.  Screwing the pooch doesn't begin to describe the travestry of Wings of Liberty.  It was truly 1/3 of a greater whole, with the blank spaces filled in with "Hey Cow boy, I got a new schematic".
Don't look to Starcraft II as justification for games of today being longer and/or with more content.
Lets talk about new titles, like Homefront.  Let's talk about older franchies, like Call of Duty, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil.


Unforutnately, 15 hours would be a heaven sent in today's world, and I wouldn't be having this discussion.  I'm not attempting to argue for 40 hours single player games in all cases - so, I'm honestly sorry if that's how I'm coming across.  That's not my position.
What I'm talking about is the fact that we're down in single digit hours for all single player content.  I don't just mean the single player campaign - I mean all offline, non-multiplayer based content being completed in less than 9 hours.  As for multiplayer, you obviously get longer legs from it due to the rinse-and-repeat nature, however it doesn't excust the mere handful of maps most games ship with, before announcing the first wave of DLC multiplayer maps that were stripped out of the boxed release.


You have a point, however don't act like this isn't an issue.
As for the Call of Duty gamers, the picture in question should 4/5s of a single screen in game, unless I misunderstood the information presented.  It's a valid point - however I, personally, don't buy games that require an internet connection for single player.  I purchased Starcraft II against my better judgement, and like SPORE before it, it burnt me horribly.

Although gamers might still buy these titles, it's not because they accept the restrictions - its because they grit their teeth and buy the next game in whatever series they have a personal attachment to.
I'm buying The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, despite it's Steamworks DRM bullshit.  And I'll personally be developing the modification to the .exe to remove the Steamworks integration so that my copy of the game doesn't ever register on their severs.  Normally, this isn't something I would do, however The Elder Scrolls offers me something no other game has before it.  It might sound stupid, I feel that Morrowind and Oblivion are very personal experiences to me, and having a new chapter available and being unable to play it doesn't sit right at all.
This is the same feeling that Publishers and Developers are using against other gamers for other series.  It's basically raping your customers for a profit, while grinding your axe.  Today, it's online requirements and microtransactions.  With Deus Ex: Human Revolution, its in-game advertising that reaks immersion.  What are up against tomorrow?
Gamer's dont want this garbage, but Game Publishers are the only ones who, you know, make games and so they're getting away with it.