In a loot based game, selling of any items makes no sense. Yes, there will be sites that try to profit off of the fact that people will buy there way to the top. There is no avoiding this, but Blizzard would be stupid to try to fix the problem by creating their own store. This does no fix the problem, it just gives them the money from the problem. However, a broken game is much more damaging to their profits than an item store would be.
That has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard all year.
Wow. The short-sightedness of that astoundingly moronic statement is overwhelming.
I've been sitting here for 2 minutes trying to think, if Blizzard generated infinite money from an item-selling store, what could they *possibly* do to make Diablo 3 better? Nothing. Can you think of anything?
A item-selling store will utterly destroy the game such that no amount of money can possibly fix it up. It's the point of no return.
Oh the irony.
You accuse someone of short-sightedness when you've shown that you are clearly unable to factor in how more money *can* lead to the improvement of D3?
I am not saying it will but you need to be pretty thick-skulled to be unable to grasp such a simple concept.
You've completely dodged the challenge in the quote.
No, I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning, that is a store that sells useful items and gear. If you do, please enlighten us all.
What would they spend that money on? More PvP features such as ladders and tournaments? What legitimacy would this have when a significant contributor to winning or losing is the gear that you and others have bought? More dungeons and quests? What would be the point when you can just buy the gear anyway? To drag the lore out beyond the stories in the games already planned? At this point, D3 would have lost all legitimacy as a game and more importantly, as a form of escapism, because the items and gear you have can be determined by how much real life money you are willing to spend. It won't be a form of escapism, because at every frame we will be reminded that the items and gear of other players have been bought with real life money.
As I've said, selling gear is the point of no return. It is the threshold at which no amount of money will be able to fix the game, as long as that store is up and running.
But the strongest argument against a vanity store is basic fairness. Vanity stores, and any stores that sell in-game things for money, destroys the integrity of the game. It is fundamentally not fair that after purchasing the game you're not allowed access to all the features of the game, including vanity features.
Fairness? In terms of looks and features that don't influence the killing power of your character? Remind me again why you play diablo? Oh ya, to show everybody you are wearing the coolest armor and weapons. Even if that was your primary reason, is it so difficult to grasp why vanity items will never have the same bragging value as a farmed rare item?
Yes, fairness. Fairness isn't about the fact that gear has greater "bragging value", fairness is related to everyone having equal access to the entire feature set of the game, that includes both gear and vanity items.
Despite that gear is usually considered more important than vanity items, it is still unfair, by definition, that players can have different levels of access to vanity items, depending on whether they buy it for real life money.
Furthermore, the importance of gear, compared to vanity items, measured by its effect on ones enjoyment of the game is ultimately subjective and arbitrary. And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.
I would argue that it is better for Blizzard to raise the price of the game than to offer a vanity store, because at least everyone will have the same access to everything in the game.
I think this is the strongest piece of evidence that your brain might not be functioning properly. Do you realize this will make the game even more inaccessible? How much can you raise the price to cover what you get through a vanity store?
I never said that Blizzard should raise the price of the game. In fact, I hope that Blizzard does not raise the price of the game.
But raising the price of the game is better than selling items, and even better than selling only vanity items. It is the lesser of the two evils.
While raising the price of the game may make the game slightly less accessible in the short term, at least it keeps the game fair and equal for everyone. And because of this, it maintains the integrity of the game. Selling items, even vanity items, fundamentally undermines the notion of fairness that games should offer. Real life money should not factor into anything, as long as you've bought the game. Selling any items destroys fairness, and therefore raising the price, while unfavorable, is not as bad as this.
Customization is essential in RPGs, which is why it is incredibly unfair to force people to buy these vanity features, if they want them, instead of having these features be part of the game that everyone can access, without additional charge. The fact that customization is such a core component of RPG games only makes vanity stores even more unacceptable.
Only if you have some serious character flaws, will you feel 'forced' to buy vanity items. You are conveniently choosing to ignore all those relevant customization features like runes and thousands of builds available to whine about how you won't be able to wear a magenta-colored headgear unless you shell out a few bucks. It's time you return to our universe because there's some serious problem of tunnel-vision in yours.
What reason do you give that players should have to pay to wear the magenta headpiece? Why should it not be part of the game, without additional charge, and accessible to everyone?
The point I was making is that if you want to get the magenta headpiece, and it was only available from a store, then you would be forced to pay for it.
Further, the existance of game mechanics like runes, which can be used to customize spell functionality, doesn't change my argument. Indeed, it isn't even relevant to my argument. That being, if there is any form of store at all, then players can pay more to access additional customization features, which is unfair and unequal. The observation that the game already includes customization features doesn't change this obvious fact.
Some people still have a good thinking process coupled with a mind that opposes an ever growing stupidity brought along by these modern times that we live in.
You again? All your 'contribution' in this thread so far has been about how anybody not having the same opinion as you is stupid. I strongly advise you stop with that bullshit. There are actual valid arguments on both sides- possible advantages and disadvantages.
A stubbornly unilateral approach like yours- with complete disregard and utter contempt for what the other side has to bring- is what constitute the very essence of stupidity.
Your only contribution to this thread is a bit of pseudo-logic and a lot of name calling. You really haven't offered anything substantive.
While selling gear, in comparison to selling vanity items, is more damaging to the game, any form of store at all damages the integrity of the game and undermines basic principles of fairness. Therefore, I maintain that there is no room for compromise.
There is nothing wrong with selling item. It could go eBay or any method people people prefer. Why is selling item become a problem in D2X, but not in D2? It is simple. Because in D2, everyone's gear is different. There is no such thing as a perfect gears, everything are random. But now in D2X, it changed the item from rare to unique and everyone has the same exact gears.
What make it worst is monsters no longer drop anything, you have to kill boss to get anything that worth to keep.
In D2, everyone just mind their own business, some people like to do river and do river, some like to do Chaos, and they do Chaos, etc. They never bother to kill the boss because they never drop anything. This all changed in D2X. Instead of playing the game, everyone just go fight pindle or baal.
Game's items will need to go back to how D2 was or else it will have the same problem as D2x.
You've completely dodged the challenge in the quote.
Challenge? I dodged the stupidity yes, since I assumed you would actually make your brain work on your own. However that has been a large oversight on my behalf. I apologize.
No, I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning, that is a store that sells useful items and gear. If you do, please enlighten us all.
Here's a quote from Ophion. Pointless for me to write it all up again- he explained it really well.
1. We pay Blizzard once, when we purchase the game. That money won't last forever if we want them to pay for servers, support staff and patches. If we want them to stay dedicated to this game and continuously work on it then they are going to need a steady income to compensate for their work. If no continuous stream of money is going to Blizzard, what will happen? They will eventually have to cut down on everything in order to minimize expenses, because otherwise they would start losing money. If a couple of million dollars are going to Blizzard every year from micro-transactions, then that is a couple of million dollars (- the cost to make more micro-transaction content) to be spent on patches, for example.
You have 10 bucks. You can buy 3 cookies with it.
You have 20 bucks. Guess what? You can buy 6 cookies with it.
Holy cow! The miracle of more money. Now don't try to directly compare cookies with D3 (as I am sure you are dying to) but essentially more money allows for more work to be done on D3.
Whether it is worth playing to you is completelyirrelevant since my point was that more money can lead to more improvements. And that's pretty much a fact.
What would they spend that money on? More PvP features such as ladders and tournaments? What legitimacy would this have when a significant contributor to winning or losing is the gear that you and others have bought? More dungeons and quests? What would be the point when you can just buy the gear anyway? To drag the lore out beyond the stories in the games already planned? At this point, D3 would have lost all legitimacy as a game and more importantly, as a form of escapism, because the items and gear you have can be determined by how much real life money you are willing to spend. It won't be a form of escapism, because at every frame we will be reminded that the items and gear of other players have been bought with real life money.
This is truly touching. I almost shed a tear.
Oh and I will completely disregard your little drama-queen act of item-selling store because it is quite clear in my post that I was referring to vanity ones that don't affect your character's power.
IF the store system works and generates money and that somehow D3 lasts as long as D2, more resources will be welcome.
D2 got stale- like real stale with the last patch having a 1 YEAR delay. I suspect the reason why there were even any patches at all was to keep the interest in the diablo series alive long enough for D3 to hit the scene.
Now for the store to continue working, such delays become a big no-no. In essence it's more power to customers- to be entitled to more regular updates.
Yes, fairness. Fairness isn't about the fact that gear has greater "bragging value", fairness is related to everyone having equal access to the entire feature set of the game, that includes both gear and vanity items.
Uhm no. If vanity items are not planned as being part of the original game, then no. It's pretty simple to understand.
You buy a car. You are also expected to buy the extra tires if you want them. Vanity is extra. You don't need them to play the game or compete. What you are claiming here is not only illogical but senseless whining.
Despite that gear is usually considered more important than vanity items, it is still unfair, by definition, that players can have different levels of access to vanity items, depending on whether they buy it for real life money.
Furthermore, the importance of gear, compared to vanity items, measured by its effect on ones enjoyment of the game is ultimately subjective and arbitrary. And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.
You measure importance of gear as enjoyment of game? Ok. So, a vanity feature that doesn't allow you to kill any faster or better makes you enjoy the game more, when compared to what you experience with a useful gear, huh? I guess I simply can't relate.
I never said that Blizzard should raise the price of the game. In fact, I hope that Blizzard does not raise the price of the game.
But raising the price of the game is better than selling items, and even better than selling only vanity items. It is the lesser of the two evils.
While raising the price of the game may make the game slightly less accessible in the short term, at least it keeps the game fair and equal for everyone. And because of this, it maintains the integrity of the game. Selling items, even vanity items, fundamentally undermines the notion of fairness that games should offer. Real life money should not factor into anything, as long as you've bought the game. Selling any items destroys fairness, and therefore raising the price, while unfavorable, is not as bad as this.
I completely disagree. Also do realize that what you are saying is almost impossible to do since you cannot predict how much stores would generate and therefore cannot adjust the game's value with respect to that.
This is a far worse idea than stores. Just my opinion.
The point I was making is that if you want to get the magenta headpiece, and it was only available from a store, then you would be forced to pay for it.
No you wouldn't. End of story.
The very idea that you will feel forced to buy such an item is strongly indicative of a person's immaturity and spoiled-brat nature.
Further, the existance of game mechanics like runes, which can be used to customize spell functionality, doesn't change my argument. Indeed, it isn't even relevant to my argument. That being, if there is any form of store at all, then players can pay more to access additional customization features, which is unfair and unequal. The observation that the game already includes customization features doesn't change this obvious fact.
My point is that that the relevant customization features still make the game playable with no effect to a character's power and ability to compete if vanity stores were present.
Customization as eye-candy alone brings me back to an earlier point in my previous post- vanity items can't compete with a rare farmed one. So the real eye-candy remains non-vanity items, at least among the less-casual gamers of Diablo.
Your only contribution to this thread is a bit of pseudo-logic and a lot of name calling. You really haven't offered anything substantive.
While selling gear, in comparison to selling vanity items, is more damaging to the game, any form of store at all damages the integrity of the game and undermines basic principles of fairness. Therefore, I maintain that there is no room for compromise.
I am AGAINST stores but to be so close-minded as you are being with the fairy tale stories(or pseudo logic if you prefer) of how your happy ending is all messed-up is laughable at best.
I thought you were ok with name-calling since your first post in the thread suggested you quite enjoyed it.
We differ on these so-called principles of fairness so while you are welcome to reply to me, this discussion is becoming circular.
Your arguments are based on abstract concepts like fairness, integrity and enjoyment (of game), all of which vary from person to person and simply cannot be really debated upon unless we agree on a universal definition. Something not likely to happen.
- Blizzard's not going to sell anything that could possibly change gameplay. It should be obvious with their stated design goals and history of games. It's not even worth worrying about, really.
- They won't sell armor dyes, or anything that permanently influences the aesthetics of your gear. The Diablo series has emphasized loot and looks moreso than other games, and your gear defines much of who you are and what you've accomplished - Blizzard knows this, it was their primary design goal. You can worry about this a tiny bit, but only if you're afraid of the dark.
- In WoW, they sold cute non-combat pets, fun-looking steeds, or small usable items that produced lights or sounds. None of these impacted gear, the look of gear, or gameplay. They were all instantly recognizable as items bought off the Blizzard store, and therefore didn't compete with recognition of a player's skills (or lack thereof). Casual and Hardcore players alike purchased them and enjoyed them for precisely what they're meant for: small bits of entertainment. You can worry about this a fair amount, if you find cute bunnies and pretty ponies terrifying.
- Many of the sales from WoW's online store (particularly the pets) had the proceeds to go charities and special funds. For the accusations of greed and avarice, it's worth noting that annual donations made by Blizzard lead to staggering amounts.
My advice: Stop talking about anyone being the next Scrooge.
- For ANYONE talking about money at all, you really need to work in a game software company to have even a notion of what is or isn't needed to produce, expand, and support an MMO or a game like Diablo3. I have, and many of my friends are programmers/designers in that industry, from major MMOs to games like Plants versus Zombies, and even I can't really say. Most of you can't even comment on the raw engineering manpower needed for a game of this scale, much less the tools, technology, facilities, artistic support, customer support, legal support, marketing, and production that goes along with it.
My advice: Stop talking about whether Blizzard needs the money or not, because if you're in a position to truly know - you wouldn't be talking about it (and you'd be working on your stock portfolio).
- Saying that the vanity items impact "fairness" is like saying some sports teams have an unfair advantage because their team mascot is fuzzier/more colorful, or because they have hotter cheerleaders. (Well, the latter might have a significant effect on the fans, which might have an impact on the players... nevermind.)
- Saying that additional money for some non-performance-related perks leads to "inequality" is ridiculous. I might buy the same car as you, but my choice to spend a little extra to get a better sound system is my prerogative, as it is yours to decline. The notion that the car dealership condones inequality because of this is laughable. Everyone gets exactly what they paid for, and everyone has the freedom to pay a little more to giggle/smile/scream at a cute bunny or a pretty pony.
You buy a car. You are also expected to buy the extra tires if you want them. Vanity is extra.
Not to nitpick, but this is a terrible example. What if those tires were Azure Tires of Dexterity? Now some smirking Paladin who paid real money for them is going to round that curve *slightly faster than you*, and look better to boot (Azure tires DO look good with the right chassis color and Paladin aura).
Unfair advantage? You bet.
I think we should stick to the example in my previous post. A better sound system isn't going to make my car faster, handle better, or even look different. The only thing it will do is amuse me while I drive, and annoy the cop who pulls me over (and also irritate the guy holding the "Fight the Inequality!" sign over at the car dealership).
You buy a car. You are also expected to buy the extra tires if you want them. Vanity is extra.
Not to nitpick, but this is a terrible example. What if those tires were Azure Tires of Dexterity? Now some smirking Paladin who paid real money for them is going to round that curve *slightly faster than you*, and look better to boot (Azure tires DO look good with the right chassis color and Paladin aura).
Unfair advantage? You bet.
I think we should stick to the example in my previous post. A better sound system isn't going to make my car faster, handle better, or even look different. The only thing it will do is amuse me while I drive, and annoy the cop who pulls me over (and also irritate the guy holding the "Fight the Inequality!" sign over at the car dealership).
Allow me to return the favor.
A better sound system will make me enjoy my car more which is one of the arguments of paralleluniverse claiming that vanity items may play a substantial part in his appreciation of the game. So in the end while the car doesn't drive faster or handle better it all comes down to personal satisfaction which suddenly makes your analogy as bad (or worse) than mine.
However I do understand the basic principles behind an analogy, which is the reproduction of some highlighting feature of an idea/statement in a different, common and much more relatable medium.
Therefore in order to grasp this 'highlighting feature', you are required to make some level of compromise (which I didn't do when talking about the sound system just to illustrate my point) as to the actual details of the analogy. Why? For the simple fact that as soon as you over-analyze (nit-pick), you are doing so in a different context to the original idea and the analogy just won't hold. And that goes for the best analogies out there.
End note- debating on analogy specifics is definitely the low point of any discussion.
There is something that hasn't been discussed. Let's imagine this scenario:
There's a vanity store making large profits. The biggest selling items are the more "interesting" items or stuff that doesn't really fit the universe of sanctuary. For example, a tabard with a bull head on it. People buy it because it looks silly and they want to stand out. Blizzard takes note of this and gets greedy. They say, wouldn't a cow skin dye sell like hotcakes? So they release a cow skin dye. Tens of thousands of people buy it because it looks so zany. Diablo is know known as Bessie. Integrity of the game is damaged.
I'm not saying this will happen but there's a chance because we all know ridiculous items usually sell better than ones that fit the universe. You can say Blizzard wouldn't make items that don't totally fit the universe. This is alright if it's subtle. But who really knows where a vanity store could lead to? It might fit in the bonus level but for standard play I don't really want to see crazy cow warriors.
You've completely dodged the challenge in the quote.
Challenge? I dodged the stupidity yes, since I assumed you would actually make your brain work on your own. However that has been a large oversight on my behalf. I apologize.
You still haven't stated a valid way in which more money will lead to improvements to D3 such that it is worth playing, while an item and gear selling store is operating.
Yes, the part of Sixen's post which I was replying to is about an item and gear selling store, not a vanity store.
No, I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning, that is a store that sells useful items and gear. If you do, please enlighten us all.
Here's a quote from Ophion. Pointless for me to write it all up again- he explained it really well.
1. We pay Blizzard once, when we purchase the game. That money won't last forever if we want them to pay for servers, support staff and patches. If we want them to stay dedicated to this game and continuously work on it then they are going to need a steady income to compensate for their work. If no continuous stream of money is going to Blizzard, what will happen? They will eventually have to cut down on everything in order to minimize expenses, because otherwise they would start losing money. If a couple of million dollars are going to Blizzard every year from micro-transactions, then that is a couple of million dollars (- the cost to make more micro-transaction content) to be spent on patches, for example.
You have 10 bucks. You can buy 3 cookies with it.
You have 20 bucks. Guess what? You can buy 6 cookies with it.
Holy cow! The miracle of more money. Now don't try to directly compare cookies with D3 (as I am sure you are dying to) but essentially more money allows for more work to be done on D3.
You seemed to have completely missed the point. What you're talking about is continued support and development for the game. But I've already shown in my previous post, with examples of possible additional content, (requoted below) that once there is an item selling store operating, why the game wouldn't even be worth playing, let alone supporting.
What would they spend that money on? More PvP features such as ladders and tournaments? What legitimacy would this have when a significant contributor to winning or losing is the gear that you and others have bought? More dungeons and quests? What would be the point when you can just buy the gear anyway? To drag the lore out beyond the stories in the games already planned? At this point, D3 would have lost all legitimacy as a game and more importantly, as a form of escapism, because the items and gear you have can be determined by how much real life money you are willing to spend. It won't be a form of escapism, because at every frame we will be reminded that the items and gear of other players have been bought with real life money.
Additionally, D2, WC3, and SC2 didn't need continued revenue from an item-selling store. If your concern is that Blizzard requires continued revenue in order to support Diablo 3 into the future, then why don't you suggest a subscription model? While a subscription model may not be as popular as a pay-once game, at least it doesn't cause the game to be unfair the same way an item-selling store will. At least, everyone will still have equal access to the same content and gear. Compared to an item-selling store, a subscription model is also the lesser of the two evils.
In summary, there's no point in supporting a shit game through additional dungeons, features, systems, and content.
Whether it is worth playing to you is completelyirrelevant since my point was that more money can lead to more improvements. And that's pretty much a fact.
You think I'm the only person who would not play a game that is trivialized by players buying gear off a store? Look at the poll result. My claim was not that more money will not lead to more improvements. My claim was that more money generated from an item selling store will not lead to improvements, because the very existence of an item selling store causes irreparable damage: "I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning".
What would they spend that money on? More PvP features such as ladders and tournaments? What legitimacy would this have when a significant contributor to winning or losing is the gear that you and others have bought? More dungeons and quests? What would be the point when you can just buy the gear anyway? To drag the lore out beyond the stories in the games already planned? At this point, D3 would have lost all legitimacy as a game and more importantly, as a form of escapism, because the items and gear you have can be determined by how much real life money you are willing to spend. It won't be a form of escapism, because at every frame we will be reminded that the items and gear of other players have been bought with real life money.
This is truly touching. I almost shed a tear.
Oh and I will completely disregard your little drama-queen act of item-selling store because it is quite clear in my post that I was referring to vanity ones that don't affect your character's power.
IF the store system works and generates money and that somehow D3 lasts as long as D2, more resources will be welcome.
D2 got stale- like real stale with the last patch having a 1 YEAR delay. I suspect the reason why there were even any patches at all was to keep the interest in the diablo series alive long enough for D3 to hit the scene.
Now for the store to continue working, such delays become a big no-no. In essence it's more power to customers- to be entitled to more regular updates.
My post was directed at Sixen's news post (I even quoted it), in which he was clearly talking about an item and gear selling store, and not a vanity store, as he has a separate category for vanity stores. So why are you talking about vanity stores in a part of the discussion that is about an item and gear selling store? While the discussion of my response to Sixen's post is about an item and gear selling store, everything else is about selling vanity items.
It is also not clear to me why you've wrote this in response to what you've quoted, as it doesn't address or even relate to what is in the quote.
As I've stated before, there is no point in putting resources and money into a game that has been shitted on by an item selling store.
Yes, fairness. Fairness isn't about the fact that gear has greater "bragging value", fairness is related to everyone having equal access to the entire feature set of the game, that includes both gear and vanity items.
Uhm no. If vanity items are not planned as being part of the original game, then no. It's pretty simple to understand.
You buy a car. You are also expected to buy the extra tires if you want them. Vanity is extra. You don't need them to play the game or compete. What you are claiming here is not only illogical but senseless whining.
A game is not the same as a car. Vanity items are a core part of the game. They come with the game. It is not unusual for games to offer the entire feature set, all of the content, equally to everyone, in one transaction. This is how D2 and WC3 worked. Everyone buys the same game, everyone has the same access to all of the content, vanity or otherwise.
Despite that gear is usually considered more important than vanity items, it is still unfair, by definition, that players can have different levels of access to vanity items, depending on whether they buy it for real life money.
Furthermore, the importance of gear, compared to vanity items, measured by its effect on ones enjoyment of the game is ultimately subjective and arbitrary. And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.
You measure importance of gear as enjoyment of game? Ok. So, a vanity feature that doesn't allow you to kill any faster or better makes you enjoy the game more, when compared to what you experience with a useful gear, huh? I guess I simply can't relate.
I'm not measuring anything for myself. I'm stating the obvious fact that people place different values on gear and vanity items, as measured by ones enjoyment of the game.
While most people would derive greater enjoyment in the game from getting a best-in-slot item compared to dying their headpiece purple, others may derive more enjoyment from the game from dying their headpiece purple, compared to getting a weapon upgrade that amounted to +1 stamina.
And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.
I have one further point to add here. Just because it doesn't give an in-game advantage makes it OK?
What if you can pay to change your armor models to the coolest looking armor in the game (in a way that does not affect stats)?
What if you can pay to customize your character models like a MMO, while others can't?
The problem is not in-game advantage vs cosmetic rewards. The fundamental problem is fairness. For the game to be fair, everyone should have access the the same things in the game, cosmetic or not. Why should these two features only be available to those who bought it from a store?
I never said that Blizzard should raise the price of the game. In fact, I hope that Blizzard does not raise the price of the game.
But raising the price of the game is better than selling items, and even better than selling only vanity items. It is the lesser of the two evils.
While raising the price of the game may make the game slightly less accessible in the short term, at least it keeps the game fair and equal for everyone. And because of this, it maintains the integrity of the game. Selling items, even vanity items, fundamentally undermines the notion of fairness that games should offer. Real life money should not factor into anything, as long as you've bought the game. Selling any items destroys fairness, and therefore raising the price, while unfavorable, is not as bad as this.
I completely disagree. Also do realize that what you are saying is almost impossible to do since you cannot predict how much stores would generate and therefore cannot adjust the game's value with respect to that.
This is a far worse idea than stores. Just my opinion.
I'm not even suggesting that Blizzard raise the price of D3, so I'm not sure why you came to the conclusion that the idea of predicting how much profit a store would generate would be unfeasible. I'm only saying hypothetically that raising the price is not as bad as any form of store, because it keeps the game fair.
This was an argument to point out the importance of fairness in a game.
The point I was making is that if you want to get the magenta headpiece, and it was only available from a store, then you would be forced to pay for it.
No you wouldn't. End of story.
The very idea that you will feel forced to buy such an item is strongly indicative of a person's immaturity and spoiled-brat nature.
If you want that vanity item, and it was only available through a store, then there is no other way to have that item, therefore, by definition, you are forced to pay for it. There is no other way to legally acquire the item.
How is it "spoiled" to want everyone to have the same and equal access to all features of the game? It seems that it would be more "spoiled" for some players to get access to additional vanity items and customization features, just because they are willing to spend more real life money, as opposed to having all of this be obtainable by in-game means only.
Further, the existance of game mechanics like runes, which can be used to customize spell functionality, doesn't change my argument. Indeed, it isn't even relevant to my argument. That being, if there is any form of store at all, then players can pay more to access additional customization features, which is unfair and unequal. The observation that the game already includes customization features doesn't change this obvious fact.
My point is that that the relevant customization features still make the game playable with no effect to a character's power and ability to compete if vanity stores were present.
Customization as eye-candy alone brings me back to an earlier point in my previous post- vanity items can't compete with a rare farmed one. So the real eye-candy remains non-vanity items, at least among the less-casual gamers of Diablo.
This is an argument I've already debunked. Different players place different values on gear compared to vanity items as measured by their enjoyment of the game. I've even given 2 examples above. So it's unfair that some players can have unequal access to these vanity items. It's not always about ability to compete.
Your only contribution to this thread is a bit of pseudo-logic and a lot of name calling. You really haven't offered anything substantive.
While selling gear, in comparison to selling vanity items, is more damaging to the game, any form of store at all damages the integrity of the game and undermines basic principles of fairness. Therefore, I maintain that there is no room for compromise.
I am AGAINST stores but to be so close-minded as you are being with the fairy tale stories(or pseudo logic if you prefer) of how your happy ending is all messed-up is laughable at best.
I thought you were ok with name-calling since your first post in the thread suggested you quite enjoyed it.
We differ on these so-called principles of fairness so while you are welcome to reply to me, this discussion is becoming circular.
Your arguments are based on abstract concepts like fairness, integrity and enjoyment (of game), all of which vary from person to person and simply cannot be really debated upon unless we agree on a universal definition. Something not likely to happen.
I called Sixen's argument as "moronic", I didn't directly call him a moron, this is different from what you've done. But this isn't related to the issues in this thread.
I'm not being close-minded, I have considered the implications of any store and have come to the conclusion that they are all bad. The concept of fairness is a simple one: that everyone has equal access to all features of the game. This is not a new definition, I've been saying it in my previous thread. What is your problem with this? Why would you prefer that in order to get certain vanity items someone may want, that they be forced to pay for it through a store, or go without it?
Ultimately, D3 is a game, it is not real life, and therefore the amount of real life money you are willing to spend, above the core game that everyone buys should not come into the equation, nor affect ones enjoyment of the game. That is why I've stated that the strongest argument against any store is because it destroys fairness.
You still haven't stated a valid way in which more money will lead to improvements to D3 such that it is worth playing, while an item and gear selling store is operating.
Come on now. Let's be serious for a moment. You want me to say what specifically more money can do to improve D3 with the presence of a store when I have never played the game? If that is what it takes to make my argument valid, we'll need to wait a couple of years after release, see how the in-game economy is fairing and then only will we be able to resume this discussion. Since this is not a viable option, the next best thing is to be rational about the situation. What does a game need to be better? More frequent patches and content perhaps?
How do the latter come into existence? Magic? I doubt it.
It's well-known fact that it is usually gnomes and elves at blizzard who work tirelessly through the night, away from human eyes, to make it possible. More money means
-that blizzard can now buy more candy for the gnomes and elves that are hired from Santa Claus to do the work
-and has also a stronger incentive to give us 'regular' updates.
I said it in my first post- this is not an automatic course of action but a probable one.
Regarding the store, it's not so much the integrity of the game at stake here but the integrity of the gamer as a person. Because not everyone is willing to consider spending real-life money as one of the variables to their approach to the game. You can see it this way- if you have time to farm and luck is on your side, you don't need to spend money. In the other case, you always have the option to spend cash and save yourself time. One possible advantage(I'm only speculating) is a faster way to build a PvP character. You can argue it will be unfair but the counter to this is that you won't get someone in the arena until you feel they are ready, independent of how they acquired their gear.
As for the possibility of the in-game economy being affected, I'm assuming the range of items offered in the store will be limited. Other illegal sites can profit from that but my point is that blizzard can earn substantial revenue from selling a good range of gear so that if ever buying items from the store becomes common-place, there will still be items in the game that will have a high fetching price, thereby not completely invalidating your farming efforts. So I'm expecting the economy to adjust by itself. I know that bit was nowhere in your argument but I'm just considering the different aspects of the game that can be hit by the presence of the store.
The way Sixen worded his post made me interpret it as there being a market out there for buying items with real-life money. And these items make it into the game.
With a blizzard hosted store, that market will still exist but this time the game developers will benefit from it. Of course, there's always the issue of competitive prices but that's a whole another matter.
They key difference is that this time, it's in the open and not a backyard deal. If D2 was not broken due to that, I find it an exaggeration to claim that D3 suddenly will be unplayable because of the store.
You seemed to have completely missed the point. What you're talking about is continued support and development for the game. But I've already shown in my previous post, with examples of possible additional content, (requoted below) that once there is an item selling store operating, why the game wouldn't even be worth playing, let alone supporting.
Additionally, D2, WC3, and SC2 didn't need continued revenue from an item-selling store. If your concern is that Blizzard requires continued revenue in order to support Diablo 3 into the future, then why don't you suggest a subscription model? While a subscription model may not be as popular as a pay-once game, at least it doesn't cause the game to be unfair the same way an item-selling store will. At least, everyone will still have equal access to the same content and gear. Compared to an item-selling store, a subscription model is also the lesser of the two evils.
In summary, there's no point in supporting a shit game through additional dungeons, features, systems, and content.
A shit game probably not. A good one, definitely yes.
Isn't a subscription model much more suitable for MMORPGs that have considerable server costs? I really can't see how the expenses involved in D3 would warrant one- which is why I deem a simple vanity store to be fair(your favorite word) as a form of constant revenue and why a subscription-based system never crossed my mind.
You think I'm the only person who would not play a game that is trivialized by players buying gear off a store? Look at the poll result. My claim was not that more money will not lead to more improvements. My claim was that more money generated from an item selling store will not lead to improvements, because the very existence of an item selling store causes irreparable damage: "I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning".
I don't know, man. I would love to think the poll is representative of what the majority of players feel about the whole thing but I haven't seen anything so far that would suggest that the people who voted constitute a normative sample. I might be totally wrong though and only 400 or so people are going to play D3.
Also nobody knows the exact financial model D3 is going to be based on and the level of control the team has over it, in the case of imminent failure as you have predicted should item-selling stores form part the game. Best bet is to wait and see I guess.
My post was directed at Sixen's news post (I even quoted it), in which he was clearly talking about an item and gear selling store, and not a vanity store, as he has a separate category for vanity stores. So why are you talking about vanity stores in a part of the discussion that is about an item and gear selling store? While the discussion of my response to Sixen's post is about an item and gear selling store, everything else is about selling vanity items.
It is also not clear to me why you've wrote this in response to what you've quoted, as it doesn't address or even relate to what is in the quote.
As I've stated before, there is no point in putting resources and money into a game that has been shitted on by an item selling store.
True. Editing mistake on my behalf and I got things mixed up when I originally(first post I replied to you) quoted two of your posts- Sixen one and the other from Sabvre.
My bad.
A game is not the same as a car. Vanity items are a core part of the game. They come with the game. It is not unusual for games to offer the entire feature set, all of the content, equally to everyone, in one transaction. This is how D2 and WC3 worked. Everyone buys the same game, everyone has the same access to all of the content, vanity or otherwise.
I do not regard vanity items as core of the game.
End.
I'm not measuring anything for myself. I'm stating the obvious fact that people place different values on gear and vanity items, as measured by ones enjoyment of the game.
While most people would derive greater enjoyment in the game from getting a best-in-slot item compared to dying their headpiece purple, others may derive more enjoyment from the game from dying their headpiece purple, compared to getting a weapon upgrade that amounted to +1 stamina.
And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.
It only fails if you see vanity items as core of the game and our views differ on this one.
I'm not even suggesting that Blizzard raise the price of D3, so I'm not sure why you came to the conclusion that the idea of predicting how much profit a store would generate would be unfeasible. I'm only saying hypothetically that raising the price is not as bad as any form of store, because it keeps the game fair.
This was an argument to point out the importance of fairness in a game.
You completely lost me on this one. You are not suggesting but you are saying hypothetically... Language barrier I fear.
Also you can't just randomly mention an idea if it is not even feasible which is I why I actually considered it as a possible alternative since our perceptions of fairness is different.
If you want that vanity item, and it was only available through a store, then there is no other way to have that item, therefore, by definition, you are forced to pay for it. There is no other way to legally acquire the item.
How is it "spoiled" to want everyone to have the same and equal access to all features of the game? It seems that it would be more "spoiled" for some players to get access to additional vanity items and customization features, just because they are willing to spend more real life money, as opposed to having all of this be obtainable by in-game means only.
Vanity is extra. Paying for extra is completely justifiable. Wanting extra for free is 'spoiled' to me.
This is an argument I've already debunked. Different players place different values on gear compared to vanity items as measured by their enjoyment of the game. I've even given 2 examples above. So it's unfair that some players can have unequal access to these vanity items. It's not always about ability to compete.
I called Sixen's argument as "moronic", I didn't directly call him a moron, this is different from what you've done. But this isn't related to the issues in this thread.
Strange. I was pretty sure the perpetrator of any moronicity (yay for new word!) needs to be a moron, at least temporarily, until the act is done.
Excuse me if I am more direct.
I'm not being close-minded, I have considered the implications of any store and have come to the conclusion that they are all bad. The concept of fairness is a simple one: that everyone has equal access to all features of the game. This is not a new definition, I've been saying it in my previous thread. What is your problem with this? Why would you prefer that in order to get certain vanity items someone may want, that they be forced to pay for it through a store, or go without it?
Ultimately, D3 is a game, it is not real life, and therefore the amount of real life money you are willing to spend, above the core game that everyone buys should not come into the equation, nor affect ones enjoyment of the game. That is why I've stated that the strongest argument against any store is because it destroys fairness.
Alright let's talk a bit about this fairness business.
First of all I simply cannot stomach that notion of being 'forced' to get a vanity item if you want it. Just like the extra in a collector's edition that you have to pay more for, vanity items are the extra of the game. Should you feel you absolutely need it to enjoy the game, then you should pay for it.
D3 is not real life but the financial model will be based on real-life applications. Like, if you are willing to pay more, you are entitled for more. I partially agree with you that item-selling stores might probably have too much of a consequential disadvantage upon gameplay but as far as vanity items go, the whole playing field changes.
Obviously your perception will be different because of the importance you attribute to these, but understand that for some vanity is fluff and such a store generating revenue is hence perfectly alright.
Alright let's talk a bit about this fairness business.
First of all I simply cannot stomach that notion of being 'forced' to get a vanity item if you want it. Just like the extra in a collector's edition that you have to pay more for, vanity items are the extra of the game. Should you feel you absolutely need it to enjoy the game, then you should pay for it.
D3 is not real life but the financial model will be based on real-life applications. Like, if you are willing to pay more, you are entitled for more. I partially agree with you that item-selling stores might probably have too much of a consequential disadvantage upon gameplay but as far as vanity items go, the whole playing field changes.
Obviously your perception will be different because of the importance you attribute to these, but understand that for some vanity is fluff and such a store generating revenue is hence perfectly alright.
i agree to you bords,
Guys,. simply think that your buying a captain america action figure stuff, where adding extra money can come up with a limited edition captain america steel shield. it`s like buying limited items for your collection, but does not affect your goal of buying that action figure. adding extra payment can give more extra benefits and quality to your expectations. "it`s paying more to satisfy your needs of specifications, but does not affect your goal of playing that game, your just investing to obtain something. In other words, you can play and be cheap, just be practical. no fairness are affected." - i`m an ragnarok player for so many years with online stores for buying good items.
I want them to sell or at least have skill dyes. By this I mean I want to see just color changes. One example would be like a black ray of frost. These would be for an ooooo... cool kinda feel and in no way game effecting. They could always do like other games have done with in game cash shops and make separate servers just for players that want a cash shop with in game gear. EQ2 did this in a sense. They even have a separate servers for people that want to do the character selling. But, keep in mind this is all done by SOE so that there are no scams and everyone gets what they want. Also keep in mind there is no cross over from money servers to non-money servers. i.e. I can't buy a maxed out character and move him/her to a normal server. I know this is a different style/type of game but the ideas I'm talking about seem viably portable.
I'm even against the more acceptable option that is "Vanity Items", I wouldn't like to see people with great looking stuff just because they have another 50 bucks in real life to waste looking better than anyone, who gave their blood to gather top tier gear and even dyes for them.
It's all preference though, but I'd like to reinforce a big huge "NO" to anything that affects gameplay.
Come on now. Let's be serious for a moment. You want me to say what specifically more money can do to improve D3 with the presence of a store when I have never played the game?
Oh the irony.
You accuse someone of short-sightedness when you've shown that you are clearly unable to factor in how more money *can* lead to the improvement of D3?
I am not saying it will but you need to be pretty thick-skulled to be unable to grasp such a simple concept.
And now you're telling me you cannot think of anything to back up that statement? Then why did you say it in the first place?
I've made the claim that no amount of money can fix D3 if there's a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store. I completely stand by this statement, and I've already given multiple reasons why this is the case.
1) It renders the main point of the game meaningless, that is acquiring and collecting gear.
2) It trivializes game content as one of the primary reasons to run content is for a chance of getting gear.
3) It delegitimizes PvP when a major contributor to winning or losing is the gear you've bought.
4) It destroys fairness because those who are willing to spend more real life money can get more gear in the game.
5) It destroys the sense of escapism that game should offer.
6) Some people who do not want to play a game ruined in this way will quit.
What the hell are you doing in this thread if you can't even think of a single point to counter my arguments?
If that is what it takes to make my argument valid, we'll need to wait a couple of years after release, see how the in-game economy is fairing and then only will we be able to resume this discussion.
How in any way is the in-game economy related to what we are discussing here? Are you suggesting that how Blizzard uses the profits from their item and gear selling store is dependent on the in-game economy?
Do you know how much attention Blizzard pays to the in-game economy in WoW? None, because it's a free market.
You clearly have a problem writing a response that is relevant to the topic being discussed, and I will continue to point this out as I reply to your meandering post.
Since this is not a viable option, the next best thing is to be rational about the situation. What does a game need to be better? More frequent patches and content perhaps?
And here we have the generic response of more patches and content, with absolutely nothing about how patches and more content can possibly fix a Diablo game that has been utterly destroyed by a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store. Be more specific.
What will they patch in? What sort of content will they make? If your response is going to continue to be essentially "I don't know because the game isn't out yet", as you've done here, then don't even bother to reply. Why would you even make such a strong statement, when you don't know?
Now let me repeat to you, with examples, why no amount of content and patches will be able to fix D3 if there is a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store.
What would they spend that money on? More PvP features such as ladders and tournaments? What legitimacy would this have when a significant contributor to winning or losing is the gear that you and others have bought? More dungeons and quests? What would be the point when you can just buy the gear anyway? To drag the lore out beyond the stories in the games already planned? At this point, D3 would have lost all legitimacy as a game and more importantly, as a form of escapism, because the items and gear you have can be determined by how much real life money you are willing to spend. It won't be a form of escapism, because at every frame we will be reminded that the items and gear of other players have been bought with real life money.
I've looked at the last time you quoted this statement, and I noticed that you still have not given a single counter to it. These are examples of things that can be patched in. And I've shown why it doesn't matter: because there's no point in patching a game destroyed by a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store.
You stated that D2 is stale due to a lack of patches. The game is better off being stale than utterly destroyed by a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store. Better the game be stale, than to let players buy their way to gear, and thereby destroying one of the most important facets of the Diablo games, the items.
Stop saying more money from a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store is good for the game because Blizzard can use the money to make patches and content, unless you can actually back this up with something specific. Then I can tell you how delusional your idea is, because whatever is it that you think can be patched in won't matter when the core of the Diablo games is utterly trivialized, and by extension, ruined.
How do the latter come into existence? Magic? I doubt it.
It's well-known fact that it is usually gnomes and elves at blizzard who work tirelessly through the night, away from human eyes, to make it possible.
Don't be sarcastic with me. How did you get the idea that I think that games are made and supported by magic? How could you possibly come to this conclusion when I said that raising the price of the game is better than a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store?
Blizzard already charges for the game. Better that they charge more for the game, or make more expansions that are charged at higher cost, or even use a subscription model like WoW, than to run their own item and gear selling store.
The reason for this is because, unlike a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store, charging a higher price or even implementing a subscription model doesn't destroy the game. It doesn't cause the following:
1) It renders the main point of the game meaningless, that is acquiring and collecting gear.
2) It trivializes game content as one of the primary reasons to run content is for a chance of getting gear.
3) It delegitimizes PvP when a major contributor to winning or losing is the gear you've bought.
4) It destroys fairness because those who are willing to spend more real life money can get more gear in the game.
5) It destroys the sense of escapism that game should offer.
6) Some people who do not want to play a game ruined in this way will quit.
A Blizzard-run item and gear selling store will do all of this to the game.
More money means
-that blizzard can now buy more candy for the gnomes and elves that are hired from Santa Claus to do the work
-and has also a stronger incentive to give us 'regular' updates.
I said it in my first post- this is not an automatic course of action but a probable one.
I don't appreciate your tasteless sarcasm.
The effect of what you're suggesting is (1) to (6). What you want is to destroy the core and soul of the Diablo games merely for more patches. Patches are worthless when the game has been mangled beyond repair.
Regarding the store, it's not so much the integrity of the game at stake here but the integrity of the gamer as a person.
The integrity of the game is destroyed when the core of the game, collecting items, is trivialized and circumvented by people simply buying items for real money.
Because not everyone is willing to consider spending real-life money as one of the variables to their approach to the game. You can see it this way- if you have time to farm and luck is on your side, you don't need to spend money. In the other case, you always have the option to spend cash and save yourself time.
This is precisely the problem. The utter unfairness and inequality in this is akin to cheating, in the sense that out of game resources are brought into the game, in order to give one an advantage in the game.
Your argument is absolutely absurd and revolting. By your logic it is acceptable for players to use power-leveling services in WoW, because it is merely spending money to save time. Consider the fact that Blizzard is unambiguously against this, and will ban you if you use a power-leveling service or bot.
One possible advantage(I'm only speculating) is a faster way to build a PvP character.
How is this in any way an advantage? The point of PvP is to compete with your character, in the gear that you've acquired, not the gear you've bought. This is the sort of nonsense that makes a mockery of PvP, particularly since a major contributor to winning or losing is gear, or as you suggest, the gear that you have bought.
Have you even thought this through? This idea is at worse forcing everyone to buy gear with real life money to be even competitive in PvP, and at best, asking casual players to buy gear with real life money before attempting to PvP. Who do you think you're helping here? This is the sort of ill-conceived nonsense that will make PvP have no legitimacy at all.
You can argue it will be unfair but the counter to this is that you won't get someone in the arena until you feel they are ready, independent of how they acquired their gear.
So you would have players buy their way to gear, rather than to earn it in-game and on an equal playing field like everyone else? If you or anyone is too lazy to play the game, within the constraints of the game, in order to acquire the gear to effectively PvP, then you do not deserve that gear.
It is categorically unfair, by all sensible definitions of the word, to the person who has legitimately acquired this gear in-game that another player can simply buy that gear for real life money. In many ways, your position parallels an argument in support of cheating.
Consider the following idea: There is a "standard gear" arena option. When a game uses this option all classes are put into a standard set of gear, so that gear has no factor in the outcome of the battle.
Now lets evaluate this idea compared to your idea of selling gear for PvP. In what way is your idea superior to mine? None. You would destroy the essence of PvP competition to give Blizzard some more money, just as quickly as you would trade away the soul of this game for some extra patches.
What is the purpose of this statement? Why are you even mentioning other illegal sites, and in what way is it related to the argument you are making?
Not only is this statement completely irrelevant, it is also misleading. In what way do illegal sites profit from Blizzard running an item and gear selling store? By undercutting them? By selling items not available on the Blizzard store? Surely, these sites would be more profitable if they did not need to undercut or compete with Blizzard, in the instance where Blizzard has no store.
but my point is that blizzard can earn substantial revenue from selling a good range of gear
Blizzard is better off earning that revenue in a way that doesn't destroy the game, such as either increasing the price of the game, making more frequent expansions charged at a higher price, or using a subscription model.
You've also made no account of the fact that Blizzard would lose money from people who quit because their item and gear selling store has destroyed the game.
so that if ever buying items from the store becomes common-place, there will still be items in the game that will have a high fetching price, thereby not completely invalidating your farming efforts.
I find your analysis crude and simplistic, to the point of deceiving. Even if I were to accept your idea that only a limited range of items were sold from a Blizzard-run store, those items could then be sold for gold, up to the point where everyone who wants the item has it. This means that even selling only a limited range of items is equivalent to selling gold, and since gold is common currency, any item can be bought with gold at some price. Therefore, selling only a limited range of items is, in effect, selling all items.
Do you even know what this statement means? I have no idea. Your language is imprecise and the meaning is completely ambiguous. Explain this statement, and then justify how you can claim it to be true.
The way Sixen worded his post made me interpret it as there being a market out there for buying items with real-life money. And these items make it into the game.
No, those items are *already* in the game. Item selling websites won't be able to poop or clone items into existence.
They key difference is that this time, it's in the open and not a backyard deal. If D2 was not broken due to that, I find it an exaggeration to claim that D3 suddenly will be unplayable because of the store.
You've completely missed the fundamental difference between D2 and a D3 that will hypothetically include a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store. Firstly, whether illegal item selling destroyed or harmed D2 is debatable. Secondly, and more importantly, selling items in D2 is against the ToS.
This is the fundamental difference. In legalizing this practice by opening a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store, players will be encourage to buy items, instead of getting banned for buying or selling items. The amount of damage that backroom deals did to D2 is thereby directly tied to the effectiveness of Blizzard's efforts to ban these cheaters. In contrast, if D3 had a Blizzard-run item selling store no action will be taken, and as a result it will waste the efforts of collecting gear, ruin the in-game economy, trivialize the game content, undermine fairness, and in general utterly destroy the game.
Rob Pardo on microtransactions:
"We've taken the approach that we want players to feel like it's a level playing field once they're in WoW."
"Outside resources don't play into it - no gold buying, etc. We take a hard line stance against it," he continued. "What you get out of micro-transactions is kind of the same thing and I think our player base would feel betrayed by it. I think that's something else you have to decide on up-front instead of implementing it later."
When it was suggested micro-transactions might make it easier for casual gamers to maintain pace with more serious players, Pardo said, "They aren't going to be the ones spending the money."
Couldn't have said it better.
No, I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning, that is a store that sells useful items and gear. If you do, please enlighten us all.
What would they spend that money on? More PvP features such as ladders and tournaments? What legitimacy would this have when a significant contributor to winning or losing is the gear that you and others have bought? More dungeons and quests? What would be the point when you can just buy the gear anyway? To drag the lore out beyond the stories in the games already planned? At this point, D3 would have lost all legitimacy as a game and more importantly, as a form of escapism, because the items and gear you have can be determined by how much real life money you are willing to spend. It won't be a form of escapism, because at every frame we will be reminded that the items and gear of other players have been bought with real life money.
As I've said, selling gear is the point of no return. It is the threshold at which no amount of money will be able to fix the game, as long as that store is up and running.
Yes, fairness. Fairness isn't about the fact that gear has greater "bragging value", fairness is related to everyone having equal access to the entire feature set of the game, that includes both gear and vanity items.
Despite that gear is usually considered more important than vanity items, it is still unfair, by definition, that players can have different levels of access to vanity items, depending on whether they buy it for real life money.
Furthermore, the importance of gear, compared to vanity items, measured by its effect on ones enjoyment of the game is ultimately subjective and arbitrary. And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.
I never said that Blizzard should raise the price of the game. In fact, I hope that Blizzard does not raise the price of the game.
But raising the price of the game is better than selling items, and even better than selling only vanity items. It is the lesser of the two evils.
While raising the price of the game may make the game slightly less accessible in the short term, at least it keeps the game fair and equal for everyone. And because of this, it maintains the integrity of the game. Selling items, even vanity items, fundamentally undermines the notion of fairness that games should offer. Real life money should not factor into anything, as long as you've bought the game. Selling any items destroys fairness, and therefore raising the price, while unfavorable, is not as bad as this.
What reason do you give that players should have to pay to wear the magenta headpiece? Why should it not be part of the game, without additional charge, and accessible to everyone?
The point I was making is that if you want to get the magenta headpiece, and it was only available from a store, then you would be forced to pay for it.
Further, the existance of game mechanics like runes, which can be used to customize spell functionality, doesn't change my argument. Indeed, it isn't even relevant to my argument. That being, if there is any form of store at all, then players can pay more to access additional customization features, which is unfair and unequal. The observation that the game already includes customization features doesn't change this obvious fact.
Your only contribution to this thread is a bit of pseudo-logic and a lot of name calling. You really haven't offered anything substantive.
While selling gear, in comparison to selling vanity items, is more damaging to the game, any form of store at all damages the integrity of the game and undermines basic principles of fairness. Therefore, I maintain that there is no room for compromise.
What make it worst is monsters no longer drop anything, you have to kill boss to get anything that worth to keep.
In D2, everyone just mind their own business, some people like to do river and do river, some like to do Chaos, and they do Chaos, etc. They never bother to kill the boss because they never drop anything. This all changed in D2X. Instead of playing the game, everyone just go fight pindle or baal.
Game's items will need to go back to how D2 was or else it will have the same problem as D2x.
Here's a quote from Ophion. Pointless for me to write it all up again- he explained it really well.
You have 10 bucks. You can buy 3 cookies with it.
You have 20 bucks. Guess what? You can buy 6 cookies with it.
Holy cow! The miracle of more money. Now don't try to directly compare cookies with D3 (as I am sure you are dying to) but essentially more money allows for more work to be done on D3.
Whether it is worth playing to you is completely irrelevant since my point was that more money can lead to more improvements. And that's pretty much a fact.
This is truly touching. I almost shed a tear.
Oh and I will completely disregard your little drama-queen act of item-selling store because it is quite clear in my post that I was referring to vanity ones that don't affect your character's power.
IF the store system works and generates money and that somehow D3 lasts as long as D2, more resources will be welcome.
D2 got stale- like real stale with the last patch having a 1 YEAR delay. I suspect the reason why there were even any patches at all was to keep the interest in the diablo series alive long enough for D3 to hit the scene.
Now for the store to continue working, such delays become a big no-no. In essence it's more power to customers- to be entitled to more regular updates.
Uhm no. If vanity items are not planned as being part of the original game, then no. It's pretty simple to understand.
You buy a car. You are also expected to buy the extra tires if you want them. Vanity is extra. You don't need them to play the game or compete. What you are claiming here is not only illogical but senseless whining.
You measure importance of gear as enjoyment of game? Ok. So, a vanity feature that doesn't allow you to kill any faster or better makes you enjoy the game more, when compared to what you experience with a useful gear, huh? I guess I simply can't relate.
I completely disagree. Also do realize that what you are saying is almost impossible to do since you cannot predict how much stores would generate and therefore cannot adjust the game's value with respect to that.
This is a far worse idea than stores. Just my opinion.
No you wouldn't. End of story.
The very idea that you will feel forced to buy such an item is strongly indicative of a person's immaturity and spoiled-brat nature.
My point is that that the relevant customization features still make the game playable with no effect to a character's power and ability to compete if vanity stores were present.
Customization as eye-candy alone brings me back to an earlier point in my previous post- vanity items can't compete with a rare farmed one. So the real eye-candy remains non-vanity items, at least among the less-casual gamers of Diablo.
I am AGAINST stores but to be so close-minded as you are being with the fairy tale stories(or pseudo logic if you prefer) of how your happy ending is all messed-up is laughable at best.
I thought you were ok with name-calling since your first post in the thread suggested you quite enjoyed it.
We differ on these so-called principles of fairness so while you are welcome to reply to me, this discussion is becoming circular.
Your arguments are based on abstract concepts like fairness, integrity and enjoyment (of game), all of which vary from person to person and simply cannot be really debated upon unless we agree on a universal definition. Something not likely to happen.
- Blizzard's not going to sell anything that could possibly change gameplay. It should be obvious with their stated design goals and history of games. It's not even worth worrying about, really.
- They won't sell armor dyes, or anything that permanently influences the aesthetics of your gear. The Diablo series has emphasized loot and looks moreso than other games, and your gear defines much of who you are and what you've accomplished - Blizzard knows this, it was their primary design goal. You can worry about this a tiny bit, but only if you're afraid of the dark.
- In WoW, they sold cute non-combat pets, fun-looking steeds, or small usable items that produced lights or sounds. None of these impacted gear, the look of gear, or gameplay. They were all instantly recognizable as items bought off the Blizzard store, and therefore didn't compete with recognition of a player's skills (or lack thereof). Casual and Hardcore players alike purchased them and enjoyed them for precisely what they're meant for: small bits of entertainment. You can worry about this a fair amount, if you find cute bunnies and pretty ponies terrifying.
- Many of the sales from WoW's online store (particularly the pets) had the proceeds to go charities and special funds. For the accusations of greed and avarice, it's worth noting that annual donations made by Blizzard lead to staggering amounts.
My advice: Stop talking about anyone being the next Scrooge.
- For ANYONE talking about money at all, you really need to work in a game software company to have even a notion of what is or isn't needed to produce, expand, and support an MMO or a game like Diablo3. I have, and many of my friends are programmers/designers in that industry, from major MMOs to games like Plants versus Zombies, and even I can't really say. Most of you can't even comment on the raw engineering manpower needed for a game of this scale, much less the tools, technology, facilities, artistic support, customer support, legal support, marketing, and production that goes along with it.
My advice: Stop talking about whether Blizzard needs the money or not, because if you're in a position to truly know - you wouldn't be talking about it (and you'd be working on your stock portfolio).
- Saying that the vanity items impact "fairness" is like saying some sports teams have an unfair advantage because their team mascot is fuzzier/more colorful, or because they have hotter cheerleaders. (Well, the latter might have a significant effect on the fans, which might have an impact on the players... nevermind.)
- Saying that additional money for some non-performance-related perks leads to "inequality" is ridiculous. I might buy the same car as you, but my choice to spend a little extra to get a better sound system is my prerogative, as it is yours to decline. The notion that the car dealership condones inequality because of this is laughable. Everyone gets exactly what they paid for, and everyone has the freedom to pay a little more to giggle/smile/scream at a cute bunny or a pretty pony.
Not to nitpick, but this is a terrible example. What if those tires were Azure Tires of Dexterity? Now some smirking Paladin who paid real money for them is going to round that curve *slightly faster than you*, and look better to boot (Azure tires DO look good with the right chassis color and Paladin aura).
Unfair advantage? You bet.
I think we should stick to the example in my previous post. A better sound system isn't going to make my car faster, handle better, or even look different. The only thing it will do is amuse me while I drive, and annoy the cop who pulls me over (and also irritate the guy holding the "Fight the Inequality!" sign over at the car dealership).
Allow me to return the favor.
A better sound system will make me enjoy my car more which is one of the arguments of paralleluniverse claiming that vanity items may play a substantial part in his appreciation of the game. So in the end while the car doesn't drive faster or handle better it all comes down to personal satisfaction which suddenly makes your analogy as bad (or worse) than mine.
However I do understand the basic principles behind an analogy, which is the reproduction of some highlighting feature of an idea/statement in a different, common and much more relatable medium.
Therefore in order to grasp this 'highlighting feature', you are required to make some level of compromise (which I didn't do when talking about the sound system just to illustrate my point) as to the actual details of the analogy. Why? For the simple fact that as soon as you over-analyze (nit-pick), you are doing so in a different context to the original idea and the analogy just won't hold. And that goes for the best analogies out there.
End note- debating on analogy specifics is definitely the low point of any discussion.
Class dismissed.
There's a vanity store making large profits. The biggest selling items are the more "interesting" items or stuff that doesn't really fit the universe of sanctuary. For example, a tabard with a bull head on it. People buy it because it looks silly and they want to stand out. Blizzard takes note of this and gets greedy. They say, wouldn't a cow skin dye sell like hotcakes? So they release a cow skin dye. Tens of thousands of people buy it because it looks so zany. Diablo is know known as Bessie. Integrity of the game is damaged.
I'm not saying this will happen but there's a chance because we all know ridiculous items usually sell better than ones that fit the universe. You can say Blizzard wouldn't make items that don't totally fit the universe. This is alright if it's subtle. But who really knows where a vanity store could lead to? It might fit in the bonus level but for standard play I don't really want to see crazy cow warriors.
Yes, the part of Sixen's post which I was replying to is about an item and gear selling store, not a vanity store.
You seemed to have completely missed the point. What you're talking about is continued support and development for the game. But I've already shown in my previous post, with examples of possible additional content, (requoted below) that once there is an item selling store operating, why the game wouldn't even be worth playing, let alone supporting.
Additionally, D2, WC3, and SC2 didn't need continued revenue from an item-selling store. If your concern is that Blizzard requires continued revenue in order to support Diablo 3 into the future, then why don't you suggest a subscription model? While a subscription model may not be as popular as a pay-once game, at least it doesn't cause the game to be unfair the same way an item-selling store will. At least, everyone will still have equal access to the same content and gear. Compared to an item-selling store, a subscription model is also the lesser of the two evils.
In summary, there's no point in supporting a shit game through additional dungeons, features, systems, and content.
You think I'm the only person who would not play a game that is trivialized by players buying gear off a store? Look at the poll result. My claim was not that more money will not lead to more improvements. My claim was that more money generated from an item selling store will not lead to improvements, because the very existence of an item selling store causes irreparable damage: "I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning".
My post was directed at Sixen's news post (I even quoted it), in which he was clearly talking about an item and gear selling store, and not a vanity store, as he has a separate category for vanity stores. So why are you talking about vanity stores in a part of the discussion that is about an item and gear selling store? While the discussion of my response to Sixen's post is about an item and gear selling store, everything else is about selling vanity items.
It is also not clear to me why you've wrote this in response to what you've quoted, as it doesn't address or even relate to what is in the quote.
As I've stated before, there is no point in putting resources and money into a game that has been shitted on by an item selling store.
A game is not the same as a car. Vanity items are a core part of the game. They come with the game. It is not unusual for games to offer the entire feature set, all of the content, equally to everyone, in one transaction. This is how D2 and WC3 worked. Everyone buys the same game, everyone has the same access to all of the content, vanity or otherwise.
I'm not measuring anything for myself. I'm stating the obvious fact that people place different values on gear and vanity items, as measured by ones enjoyment of the game.
While most people would derive greater enjoyment in the game from getting a best-in-slot item compared to dying their headpiece purple, others may derive more enjoyment from the game from dying their headpiece purple, compared to getting a weapon upgrade that amounted to +1 stamina.
And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.
I have one further point to add here. Just because it doesn't give an in-game advantage makes it OK?
What if you can pay to change your armor models to the coolest looking armor in the game (in a way that does not affect stats)?
What if you can pay to customize your character models like a MMO, while others can't?
The problem is not in-game advantage vs cosmetic rewards. The fundamental problem is fairness. For the game to be fair, everyone should have access the the same things in the game, cosmetic or not. Why should these two features only be available to those who bought it from a store?
I'm not even suggesting that Blizzard raise the price of D3, so I'm not sure why you came to the conclusion that the idea of predicting how much profit a store would generate would be unfeasible. I'm only saying hypothetically that raising the price is not as bad as any form of store, because it keeps the game fair.
This was an argument to point out the importance of fairness in a game.
If you want that vanity item, and it was only available through a store, then there is no other way to have that item, therefore, by definition, you are forced to pay for it. There is no other way to legally acquire the item.
How is it "spoiled" to want everyone to have the same and equal access to all features of the game? It seems that it would be more "spoiled" for some players to get access to additional vanity items and customization features, just because they are willing to spend more real life money, as opposed to having all of this be obtainable by in-game means only.
This is an argument I've already debunked. Different players place different values on gear compared to vanity items as measured by their enjoyment of the game. I've even given 2 examples above. So it's unfair that some players can have unequal access to these vanity items. It's not always about ability to compete.
I called Sixen's argument as "moronic", I didn't directly call him a moron, this is different from what you've done. But this isn't related to the issues in this thread.
I'm not being close-minded, I have considered the implications of any store and have come to the conclusion that they are all bad. The concept of fairness is a simple one: that everyone has equal access to all features of the game. This is not a new definition, I've been saying it in my previous thread. What is your problem with this? Why would you prefer that in order to get certain vanity items someone may want, that they be forced to pay for it through a store, or go without it?
Ultimately, D3 is a game, it is not real life, and therefore the amount of real life money you are willing to spend, above the core game that everyone buys should not come into the equation, nor affect ones enjoyment of the game. That is why I've stated that the strongest argument against any store is because it destroys fairness.
Come on now. Let's be serious for a moment. You want me to say what specifically more money can do to improve D3 with the presence of a store when I have never played the game? If that is what it takes to make my argument valid, we'll need to wait a couple of years after release, see how the in-game economy is fairing and then only will we be able to resume this discussion. Since this is not a viable option, the next best thing is to be rational about the situation. What does a game need to be better? More frequent patches and content perhaps?
How do the latter come into existence? Magic? I doubt it.
It's well-known fact that it is usually gnomes and elves at blizzard who work tirelessly through the night, away from human eyes, to make it possible. More money means
-that blizzard can now buy more candy for the gnomes and elves that are hired from Santa Claus to do the work
-and has also a stronger incentive to give us 'regular' updates.
I said it in my first post- this is not an automatic course of action but a probable one.
Regarding the store, it's not so much the integrity of the game at stake here but the integrity of the gamer as a person. Because not everyone is willing to consider spending real-life money as one of the variables to their approach to the game. You can see it this way- if you have time to farm and luck is on your side, you don't need to spend money. In the other case, you always have the option to spend cash and save yourself time. One possible advantage(I'm only speculating) is a faster way to build a PvP character. You can argue it will be unfair but the counter to this is that you won't get someone in the arena until you feel they are ready, independent of how they acquired their gear.
As for the possibility of the in-game economy being affected, I'm assuming the range of items offered in the store will be limited. Other illegal sites can profit from that but my point is that blizzard can earn substantial revenue from selling a good range of gear so that if ever buying items from the store becomes common-place, there will still be items in the game that will have a high fetching price, thereby not completely invalidating your farming efforts. So I'm expecting the economy to adjust by itself. I know that bit was nowhere in your argument but I'm just considering the different aspects of the game that can be hit by the presence of the store.
The way Sixen worded his post made me interpret it as there being a market out there for buying items with real-life money. And these items make it into the game.
With a blizzard hosted store, that market will still exist but this time the game developers will benefit from it. Of course, there's always the issue of competitive prices but that's a whole another matter.
They key difference is that this time, it's in the open and not a backyard deal. If D2 was not broken due to that, I find it an exaggeration to claim that D3 suddenly will be unplayable because of the store.
Refer to above.
A shit game probably not. A good one, definitely yes.
Isn't a subscription model much more suitable for MMORPGs that have considerable server costs? I really can't see how the expenses involved in D3 would warrant one- which is why I deem a simple vanity store to be fair(your favorite word) as a form of constant revenue and why a subscription-based system never crossed my mind.
I don't know, man. I would love to think the poll is representative of what the majority of players feel about the whole thing but I haven't seen anything so far that would suggest that the people who voted constitute a normative sample. I might be totally wrong though and only 400 or so people are going to play D3.
Also nobody knows the exact financial model D3 is going to be based on and the level of control the team has over it, in the case of imminent failure as you have predicted should item-selling stores form part the game. Best bet is to wait and see I guess.
True. Editing mistake on my behalf and I got things mixed up when I originally(first post I replied to you) quoted two of your posts- Sixen one and the other from Sabvre.
My bad.
I do not regard vanity items as core of the game.
End.
It only fails if you see vanity items as core of the game and our views differ on this one.
You completely lost me on this one. You are not suggesting but you are saying hypothetically... Language barrier I fear.
Also you can't just randomly mention an idea if it is not even feasible which is I why I actually considered it as a possible alternative since our perceptions of fairness is different.
Vanity is extra. Paying for extra is completely justifiable. Wanting extra for free is 'spoiled' to me.
Refer to above reply.
Strange. I was pretty sure the perpetrator of any moronicity (yay for new word!) needs to be a moron, at least temporarily, until the act is done.
Excuse me if I am more direct.
Alright let's talk a bit about this fairness business.
First of all I simply cannot stomach that notion of being 'forced' to get a vanity item if you want it. Just like the extra in a collector's edition that you have to pay more for, vanity items are the extra of the game. Should you feel you absolutely need it to enjoy the game, then you should pay for it.
D3 is not real life but the financial model will be based on real-life applications. Like, if you are willing to pay more, you are entitled for more. I partially agree with you that item-selling stores might probably have too much of a consequential disadvantage upon gameplay but as far as vanity items go, the whole playing field changes.
Obviously your perception will be different because of the importance you attribute to these, but understand that for some vanity is fluff and such a store generating revenue is hence perfectly alright.
i agree to you bords,
Guys,. simply think that your buying a captain america action figure stuff, where adding extra money can come up with a limited edition captain america steel shield. it`s like buying limited items for your collection, but does not affect your goal of buying that action figure. adding extra payment can give more extra benefits and quality to your expectations. "it`s paying more to satisfy your needs of specifications, but does not affect your goal of playing that game, your just investing to obtain something. In other words, you can play and be cheap, just be practical. no fairness are affected." - i`m an ragnarok player for so many years with online stores for buying good items.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise ElderI'm even against the more acceptable option that is "Vanity Items", I wouldn't like to see people with great looking stuff just because they have another 50 bucks in real life to waste looking better than anyone, who gave their blood to gather top tier gear and even dyes for them.
It's all preference though, but I'd like to reinforce a big huge "NO" to anything that affects gameplay.
Yes, I'm goddamn serious. This is what you said:
And now you're telling me you cannot think of anything to back up that statement? Then why did you say it in the first place?
I've made the claim that no amount of money can fix D3 if there's a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store. I completely stand by this statement, and I've already given multiple reasons why this is the case.
1) It renders the main point of the game meaningless, that is acquiring and collecting gear.
2) It trivializes game content as one of the primary reasons to run content is for a chance of getting gear.
3) It delegitimizes PvP when a major contributor to winning or losing is the gear you've bought.
4) It destroys fairness because those who are willing to spend more real life money can get more gear in the game.
5) It destroys the sense of escapism that game should offer.
6) Some people who do not want to play a game ruined in this way will quit.
What the hell are you doing in this thread if you can't even think of a single point to counter my arguments?
How in any way is the in-game economy related to what we are discussing here? Are you suggesting that how Blizzard uses the profits from their item and gear selling store is dependent on the in-game economy?
Do you know how much attention Blizzard pays to the in-game economy in WoW? None, because it's a free market.
You clearly have a problem writing a response that is relevant to the topic being discussed, and I will continue to point this out as I reply to your meandering post.
And here we have the generic response of more patches and content, with absolutely nothing about how patches and more content can possibly fix a Diablo game that has been utterly destroyed by a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store. Be more specific.
What will they patch in? What sort of content will they make? If your response is going to continue to be essentially "I don't know because the game isn't out yet", as you've done here, then don't even bother to reply. Why would you even make such a strong statement, when you don't know?
Now let me repeat to you, with examples, why no amount of content and patches will be able to fix D3 if there is a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store.
I've looked at the last time you quoted this statement, and I noticed that you still have not given a single counter to it. These are examples of things that can be patched in. And I've shown why it doesn't matter: because there's no point in patching a game destroyed by a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store.
You stated that D2 is stale due to a lack of patches. The game is better off being stale than utterly destroyed by a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store. Better the game be stale, than to let players buy their way to gear, and thereby destroying one of the most important facets of the Diablo games, the items.
Stop saying more money from a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store is good for the game because Blizzard can use the money to make patches and content, unless you can actually back this up with something specific. Then I can tell you how delusional your idea is, because whatever is it that you think can be patched in won't matter when the core of the Diablo games is utterly trivialized, and by extension, ruined.
Blizzard already charges for the game. Better that they charge more for the game, or make more expansions that are charged at higher cost, or even use a subscription model like WoW, than to run their own item and gear selling store.
The reason for this is because, unlike a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store, charging a higher price or even implementing a subscription model doesn't destroy the game. It doesn't cause the following:
1) It renders the main point of the game meaningless, that is acquiring and collecting gear.
2) It trivializes game content as one of the primary reasons to run content is for a chance of getting gear.
3) It delegitimizes PvP when a major contributor to winning or losing is the gear you've bought.
4) It destroys fairness because those who are willing to spend more real life money can get more gear in the game.
5) It destroys the sense of escapism that game should offer.
6) Some people who do not want to play a game ruined in this way will quit.
A Blizzard-run item and gear selling store will do all of this to the game.
I don't appreciate your tasteless sarcasm.
The effect of what you're suggesting is (1) to (6). What you want is to destroy the core and soul of the Diablo games merely for more patches. Patches are worthless when the game has been mangled beyond repair.
The integrity of the game is destroyed when the core of the game, collecting items, is trivialized and circumvented by people simply buying items for real money.
Sharpening my sword right now and waiting for you to finish posting.
This is precisely the problem. The utter unfairness and inequality in this is akin to cheating, in the sense that out of game resources are brought into the game, in order to give one an advantage in the game.
Your argument is absolutely absurd and revolting. By your logic it is acceptable for players to use power-leveling services in WoW, because it is merely spending money to save time. Consider the fact that Blizzard is unambiguously against this, and will ban you if you use a power-leveling service or bot.
How is this in any way an advantage? The point of PvP is to compete with your character, in the gear that you've acquired, not the gear you've bought. This is the sort of nonsense that makes a mockery of PvP, particularly since a major contributor to winning or losing is gear, or as you suggest, the gear that you have bought.
Have you even thought this through? This idea is at worse forcing everyone to buy gear with real life money to be even competitive in PvP, and at best, asking casual players to buy gear with real life money before attempting to PvP. Who do you think you're helping here? This is the sort of ill-conceived nonsense that will make PvP have no legitimacy at all.
So you would have players buy their way to gear, rather than to earn it in-game and on an equal playing field like everyone else? If you or anyone is too lazy to play the game, within the constraints of the game, in order to acquire the gear to effectively PvP, then you do not deserve that gear.
It is categorically unfair, by all sensible definitions of the word, to the person who has legitimately acquired this gear in-game that another player can simply buy that gear for real life money. In many ways, your position parallels an argument in support of cheating.
Consider the following idea: There is a "standard gear" arena option. When a game uses this option all classes are put into a standard set of gear, so that gear has no factor in the outcome of the battle.
Now lets evaluate this idea compared to your idea of selling gear for PvP. In what way is your idea superior to mine? None. You would destroy the essence of PvP competition to give Blizzard some more money, just as quickly as you would trade away the soul of this game for some extra patches.
What is the purpose of this statement? Why are you even mentioning other illegal sites, and in what way is it related to the argument you are making?
Not only is this statement completely irrelevant, it is also misleading. In what way do illegal sites profit from Blizzard running an item and gear selling store? By undercutting them? By selling items not available on the Blizzard store? Surely, these sites would be more profitable if they did not need to undercut or compete with Blizzard, in the instance where Blizzard has no store.
Blizzard is better off earning that revenue in a way that doesn't destroy the game, such as either increasing the price of the game, making more frequent expansions charged at a higher price, or using a subscription model.
You've also made no account of the fact that Blizzard would lose money from people who quit because their item and gear selling store has destroyed the game.
I find your analysis crude and simplistic, to the point of deceiving. Even if I were to accept your idea that only a limited range of items were sold from a Blizzard-run store, those items could then be sold for gold, up to the point where everyone who wants the item has it. This means that even selling only a limited range of items is equivalent to selling gold, and since gold is common currency, any item can be bought with gold at some price. Therefore, selling only a limited range of items is, in effect, selling all items.
Do you even know what this statement means? I have no idea. Your language is imprecise and the meaning is completely ambiguous. Explain this statement, and then justify how you can claim it to be true.
No, those items are *already* in the game. Item selling websites won't be able to poop or clone items into existence.
If by "benefit from it", you mean destroy the game causing points (1) to (6) in my posts above, then yes.
Why are you bringing "competitive prices" (whatever this is) into the discussion? In what way does it relate to your points, or the topic?
You've completely missed the fundamental difference between D2 and a D3 that will hypothetically include a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store. Firstly, whether illegal item selling destroyed or harmed D2 is debatable. Secondly, and more importantly, selling items in D2 is against the ToS.
This is the fundamental difference. In legalizing this practice by opening a Blizzard-run item and gear selling store, players will be encourage to buy items, instead of getting banned for buying or selling items. The amount of damage that backroom deals did to D2 is thereby directly tied to the effectiveness of Blizzard's efforts to ban these cheaters. In contrast, if D3 had a Blizzard-run item selling store no action will be taken, and as a result it will waste the efforts of collecting gear, ruin the in-game economy, trivialize the game content, undermine fairness, and in general utterly destroy the game.
Rob Pardo on microtransactions: