Diablo III Catch-All

Blizzard is well-aware than any move they make, of any kind, is going to met with red-faced, foot-stomping, shrieking outrage from some group of players or other. At this point, I suspect they really don't give a crap.

The contract you accept when starting the game probably says something about items being subject to change at any time and probably also that Blizzard is the owner of the players items, characters etc. The RMAH mostly representing a transaction cost to move the items Blizzard own from one character which Blizzard owns to another character which Blizzard also owns.

People will be pissed for sure, but I cant see how they could do anything about it.
The risk, if any, is probably that Blizzard could end up not making balance changes because they didn't want unhappy customers. Which would be really sad.

Shadout wrote:

The contract you accept when starting the game probably says something about items being subject to change at any time and probably also that Blizzard is the owner of the players items, characters etc. The RMAH mostly representing a transaction cost to move the items Blizzard own from one character which Blizzard owns to another character which Blizzard also owns.

People will be pissed for sure, but I cant see how they could do anything about it.

That's my guess as well. If it's written in the contract then Blizzard will have shielded itself from tons of potential suits. It's got to be. If they want to seal the issue shut they put up another notice the moment you open the auction house menu. Still, I wonder if these will help much if the price go to the range of hundreds or thousands. Even with all the warnings, is it fair for a player to lose so much after just one patch? Probably if he's forewarned, but maybe not?

Can I make a second income from selling Diablo 3 items? What will my tax person think?

Hockosi wrote:

Can I make a second income from selling Diablo 3 items? What will my tax person think?

It remains to be seen, but there are a lot of people who are getting ready to attempt just that. I'm adopting a wait and see attitude. I did okay in the WoW auction house, but this is a whole new thing.

Thirteenth wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

Doubtful this will cause much if anything more or less grief than it does now when they alter stats of items in all these types of games.

A few things make this different, though. The fact that real money is at stake, that trade is openly endorsed and facilitated by Blizzard, and that item values are under Blizzard's direct control make this a different situation than, say, WoW. Because even though monetary transactions happened around WoW's items and characters, those trades didn't receive any endorsement from Blizzard. If anything went wrong, Blizzard was free of any legal responsibilities, and the grief that followed change in item values can be easily shoved under the rug - the players knew that their actions breached the contract, were aware of the risks etc. Now that Blizzard takes on an active role in item trades, it seems the disadvantaged players have more of a claim against Blizzard.

Actually the same risk is what it was before and it's all on the players. Blizzard will change the game (gear included) as they see fit. Blizzard is just the middle man taking a cut and not able to control who buys what.

Just look for example of Magic the gathering and the whole player run economy in that game, some cards get banned from structured play and the value changes. I dont see this as any different to what blizzard can/will do in diablo3. In the previous versions of diablo where items changed that where already existing in game or where the new ones that dropped altered?

Hockosi wrote:

Can I make a second income from selling Diablo 3 items?

Outlook doubtful, perhaps if you invest so much time that you end up being fired from your primary income. Keep in mind it will cost a (yet unannounced) fee simply to list an item. If it doesn't sell? too bad for you. Then if it does sell you lose an additional (yet unannounced) % to Blizzard in order to have the money go to paypal, to withdraw from paypal you have the usual paypal fees on top of that. Even if it does end up being feasible there's the whole overjustification effect thing.

Thirteenth wrote:
Shadout wrote:

The contract you accept when starting the game probably says something about items being subject to change at any time and probably also that Blizzard is the owner of the players items, characters etc. The RMAH mostly representing a transaction cost to move the items Blizzard own from one character which Blizzard owns to another character which Blizzard also owns.

People will be pissed for sure, but I cant see how they could do anything about it.

That's my guess as well. If it's written in the contract then Blizzard will have shielded itself from tons of potential suits. It's got to be. If they want to seal the issue shut they put up another notice the moment you open the auction house menu. Still, I wonder if these will help much if the price go to the range of hundreds or thousands. Even with all the warnings, is it fair for a player to lose so much after just one patch? Probably if he's forewarned, but maybe not?

A ton?? Do items change stats that often from patch to patch? I'm sure like anything there will be ridiculous lawsuits.. but why would Blizzard be concerned about that in any shape or form? I mean beyond the probably ridiculous law suits they have had over WoW.

I think your inventing an issue that probably has very little chance of being an issue... theres not enough on the line to bring it anywhere but small claims court.. unless you have an enterprising Law Firm try to round up several thousand players and even then.. what does that law suit really bring home for the firm? Some free press? Big deal.. one Silly Class Action suit amongst a sea of silly class action suits that probably won't get out of the first Judge's office... for what a potential $1M Damages suit?

Sorry just not buying it.

That's fine. I think you make a good point, Guru. I phrased the issue like it's actually going to have real world impact. And maybe I do think that there's a chance things may get out of hand. That items may somehow reach disproportionate price. That eventually someone may lose so much out of patch changes to have the incentive to sue. All speculations, really. More than anything else, though, I'm just curious about the legality of it all.

It all sounds well and good to make Diablo III a second income (or first income?) but from my experience in loot games, it's pretty rare to come across an item worth keeping to trade even for free, in-game resources. I don't imagine anyone's going to find enough stuff worth enough money to enough people to make a career out of this.

TheGameGuru wrote:

A ton?? Do items change stats that often from patch to patch? I'm sure like anything there will be ridiculous lawsuits.. but why would Blizzard be concerned about that in any shape or form? I mean beyond the probably ridiculous law suits they have had over WoW.

The way it worked in D2 is that even on the Realm servers, when an item dropped it was "created," based on a set of valid ranges for that item but otherwise unrelated. That meant that when Blizzard patched items for balance, it was never retroactive. Sometimes they found that an item was way overpowered so they'd nerf it, but they couldn't change that overpowered version, which made them ridiculously valuable. Other times an item wasn't exactly fulfilling its intended design goals, so they'd rework the item entirely. I had an assassin wielding two unique claws, both of the same type, one before a patch and one after. They had completely different mods on them.

That's also why there was absolutely nothing they could do about the ridiculous Stone of Jordan cloning, other than prevent people from making even more.

I don't know how they handle that in D3 but I'd imagine they've figured something out. The Stone of Jordan glitch turned what was once a very rare and powerful item into the new baseline currency. Any player who was honest enough not to exploit it or joined after it had been fixed was effectively excluded from the high-end economy.

Thirteenth wrote:

That's fine. I think you make a good point, Guru. I phrased the issue like it's actually going to have real world impact. And maybe I do think that there's a chance things may get out of hand. That items may somehow reach disproportionate price. That eventually someone may lose so much out of patch changes to have the incentive to sue. All speculations, really. More than anything else, though, I'm just curious about the legality of it all.

In a way, to gain the most out of the system they've made Blizzard need to walk that line, they want items that are valued so that people will want them badly and to run that risk. Making everything safe means less people want to participate, both in the gameplay side of the game and the RMAH side.

In case people missed the TV spot

LobsterMobster wrote:

The Stone of Jordan glitch turned what was once a very rare and powerful item into the new baseline currency. Any player who was honest enough not to exploit it or joined after it had been fixed was effectively excluded from the high-end economy.

To be honest I never ran into this once. I've only ever owned one soj and never saw one up for trade. That said I only ever played much on the ladder realms which are constantly refreshed.

Tamren wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

The Stone of Jordan glitch turned what was once a very rare and powerful item into the new baseline currency. Any player who was honest enough not to exploit it or joined after it had been fixed was effectively excluded from the high-end economy.

To be honest I never ran into this once. I've only ever owned one soj and never saw one up for trade. That said I only ever played much on the ladder realms which are constantly refreshed.

That would explain it. I never played Ladder, just Realm. People advertised items for trade by price in SoJs.

I had one SoJ. I wore it.

I pre-ordered, for full price. I can't remember the last time I paid $59.99 for a game, and I can't think of another game I'd be willing to pre-order for that much money.

Blargh. I want D3 to be out now. I keep trying to play Path of Exile or something to tide me over, but it's not working.

Are you guys going to co-op from the start or play solo? I'm thinking about playing through the game solo first so I can watch the cut scenes and listen to the dialogue. Is that strange?

BNice wrote:

Are you guys going to co-op from the start or play solo? I'm thinking about playing through the game solo first so I can watch the cut scenes and listen to the dialogue. Is that strange?

That's the way I usually do these games, but I'll be doing co-op right off with this one I think.

BNice wrote:

Are you guys going to co-op from the start or play solo? I'm thinking about playing through the game solo first so I can watch the cut scenes and listen to the dialogue. Is that strange?

Here's my plan.

Day 1-3: Wait for game to show up.
Day 4: Try to log on. Fail due to server load.
Day 5: Log in intermittently. Try to connect to another Goodjer to see how the co-op works. Fail due to server load, get dumped to main menu, unable to log on again due to server load.
Day 6: Someone manages to connect to my game. Connection falls out of sync and times out while communicating with server. All progress for the day is lost.
Day 7: Manage to connect to someone else's game. Connection falls out of sync. Character is corrupted.
Day 8: Unable to start game due corrupted file from patch.
Day 9: Play Dragon's Dogma while waiting for patch.
Day 10: Game patched and now runs with relative stability. Start out single-player but respond affirmatively to co-op invitations.

I expect to play solo for exploration/plot, co-op for co-oppiness. I don't really like seeing an area for the first time at somebody else's pace.

Co-op to level and gear up. Solo for story and crafting.

I'm down for starting co-op with the idea of actually paying attention to story and quest text. This is what sucks about my brother not being able to game anymore. But I think we have enough like-minded GWJ'ers to have a more methodical exploratory group rather than just rushing for the bosses and quest rewards.

I'll probably end up rolling up a variety of characters that I use both solo and co-op depending on my whim and who is online. I'm guessing I'll have one character that I'll play primarily solo to start.

Hockosi wrote:

Can I make a second income from selling Diablo 3 items? What will my tax person think?

This has come up before with more obscure games that have sanctioned real money trading. I can't remember the specifics off-hand, but for the most part any time a politician has weighed in on the subject they've been pretty darn reasonable. Usually they something to the effect of "well we don't want to try and regulate what goes on entirely inside one of these games; once somebody cashes out then they need to be taxed on that like they would on any other income."

Hypatian wrote:

I expect to play solo for exploration/plot, co-op for co-oppiness. I don't really like seeing an area for the first time at somebody else's pace.

Me too, though I'll probably leave my own "single player" game open to people on my friends list.

Stormageddon will simply walk into Inferno alone. Shalalm Baskur will be played with all.

More xp when playing co-op!

They made it so easy to drop in and out of game with other people that I cannot see myself playing this game solo. If I am, it's only because no one is around and I dont really see that happening.

TempestBlayze wrote:

They made it so easy to drop in and out of game with other people that I cannot see myself playing this game solo. If I am, it's only because no one is around and I dont really see that happening.

As much as I normally play this game solo, I'm thinking I'll be doing the same thing as you come launch. The game just ran so well in Coop mode.

2 more weeks, wow. I never thought I'd see the day.

It almost reminds me off the weeks before "Phantom Menace". I doubt the disappointment the weeks after will be the same.