We were told by developers and publishers over the years that real-money-trading was a scourge on online gaming and ruined the experience for everyone. Rules were added to the term and conditions for just about every game to make sure that everyone knew it was not allowed and wouldn’t be tolerated. Those that did not heed the warning would risk their account being banned forever.
It seems that in the end, money rules and no one really cares whether or not real-money-trading ruins games or not. Sony Online Entertainment was the first to allow item and account selling for Everquest and Everquest 2, but shut-down the service in early 2008. Probably because of the enormous fees they charged and sellers decided the blackmarket was better for them.
Yesterday Diablo 3 launched with it’s own RMT auction house, even though Blizzard has been railing against RMT for years. It seems the real issue wasn’t that it ruined their games, but they weren’t getting a cut of the cash.
Blizzard has been adamant about their game accounts, stating time and time again, that they are the owners of the accounts and not the players, but by allowing players to buy and sell accounts to each other, isn’t Blizzard indirectly conceding they really aren’t the owners?
What Blizzard is trying to get away with here is renting you an online account, while making you pay for the game. If I paid for the game and the game requires me to make an online account to use it, then you can’t say I don’t own that account. Otherwise I cannot gain access to the game which I paid for.
Having said that, it would be reasonable to say that since I purchased the game, and the game requires an online account, then I own that online account. Going a step further, I should then be able to sell my account to anyone I want without using Blizzard’s auction system.
Where do you guys stand in the new RMT world? Is what’s good for the goose, good for the gander? Does Blizzard have any leg to stand on when it comes to RMT and players selling their accounts and items privately? Or do you believe that RMT still ruins games?
lol Sorry but i think that logic is so horrible i dont wanna waste the time arguing it.
I like it, im glad blizzard did it, i was super excited to find out it was planned and im hoping ill actually finally live one of my dreams: make money while playing a game i love. Whether that happens or not doesnt really matter, i love the crap out of the game so if i dont make any money thats fine with me, if i do its a dream come true, and itll be legal.
I think most agree P2W is not right. RMT is too close to P2W for my liking, If you can pay real money to get an advantage over other people in game then it lessens the game to me.
.
People say its different,that it isnt P2W, but as I see it if I have more money then my mate I can go to the AH buy some top gear and have an immediate advantage over him – that would be P2W in my eyes.
.
As time goes on online gaming is moving away from designing for the gamers experience and more designed around how much money can be milked.
.
It used to be we buy a game for £30 and that was it.
Then we went to buy a game for £40 and pay monthly subs
Then it went pay £45 for the game, pay monthly subs and buy items from the cash shop.
Now to be competetive its going the way of we have to pay for the game, pay the monthly subs, buy items from the cash shop and throw money into an AH which the game developer rakes off the top.
.
When does it end …… when blizzard and other game developers start offering loans with minimum APRs to play their game?
Sorry, but I can’t help but feel that this article was poorly written and hardly researched.
“We were told by developers and publishers over the years that real-money-trading was a scourge on online gaming and ruined the experience for everyone. Rules were added to the term and conditions for just about every game to make sure that everyone knew it was not allowed and wouldn’t be tolerated. Those that did not heed the warning would risk their account being banned forever.”
Most game forbid it for several reasons, gameplay among them. Legal problems were probably among the chief reasons. Nothing was cited here, so I don’t know specifically what you are talking about.
“It seems that in the end, money rules and no one really cares whether or not real-money-trading ruins games or not.”
If you are talking about Diablo 3, Blizzard elaborated on why they are supporting RMT. One, yes its profitable, but it is also much more secure and provides a better user experience.
“Yesterday Diablo 3 launched with it’s own RMT auction house, even though Blizzard has been railing against RMT for years. It seems the real issue wasn’t that it ruined their games, but they weren’t getting a cut of the cash.”
The RMAH didn’t launch yet. They are using it as a tool to reduce spam and improve security, as its easier and more profitable. Blizzard isn’t going to do something that “ruins their games”. RMT is very popular.
“Blizzard has been adamant about their game accounts, stating time and time again, that they are the owners of the accounts and not the players, but by allowing players to buy and sell accounts to each other, isn’t Blizzard indirectly conceding they really aren’t the owners?”
You can’t sell accounts. Later, they may allow you to sell characters to each other. The details aren’t known yet. But, if you read the ToS, you’ll learn that you do not “own the software”, and no ToS has ever really given you “ownership”. Companies retain all the rights they can to control usage and distribution. The enforcement isn’t what’s on some forums, read what you are actually agreeing to when you play the game, especially if you are going to pretend to know what you are talking about.
“What Blizzard is trying to get away with here is renting you an online account, while making you pay for the game. If I paid for the game and the game requires me to make an online account to use it, then you can’t say I don’t own that account. Otherwise I cannot gain access to the game which I paid for.
Having said that, it would be reasonable to say that since I purchased the game, and the game requires an online account, then I own that online account. Going a step further, I should then be able to sell my account to anyone I want without using Blizzard’s auction system.”
I’m not even going to address that. How does this website even let something like that get published? This reads like an angry forum post, not a news or blog post.
http://www.wowwiki.com/Gold_farmer
.
“World of Warcraft is the property of Blizzard, and Blizzard does not allow “in-game” items to be sold for real money…Not only do we believe that it is illegal, but it also has the potential to damage the game economy and overall experience for the many thousands of others who play World of Warcraft for fun.”
.
What I’m trying to point out that for WoW, Blizzard has been saying it’s damaging to the game and experience of all players, while in Diablo 3 it’s perfectly fine, but it still not fine to do without paying them. It’s very hypocritical which what this article was meant to point out.
Is it hypocritical, though? WoW wasn’t built from the get-go with real value in mind, and the harm is done by having third parties spam and hack accounts. They don’t have that with Diablo since they do it in-house with high security.
Uh, they’re facilitating the selling of wholesale accounts? Not just items on the accounts? I need a source to see if that’s really possible. Your logic doesn’t hold up otherwise.
The beta auction house showed full characters for sale. Whether or not that will be available when the AH opens has to be seen, but the coding is there and I would suspect at the very least, Blizzard had planned for it at one point or another.
Where do you stand on RMT?
Roger Vivier online http://www.lepassagetoindia.com/rogervivier.asp
In a video captured by a driver caught in the middle of the mayhem, skaters are seen vandalizing businesses and throwing bottles, as bystanders can be seen running — a melee that more than 100 Los Angeles police officers in riot gear were deployed to quash.
DON’T MISS. Chicken Burger ($7), Spicy Slaw ($3/$8), Fries with Works ($5/$10)
The Roosevelt Hotel
Mark Sanchez called a 18-yard deep out pass pattern.
“About 11 seconds prior to impact, an audible alert consistent with the low airspeed caution was recorded,” Bill English, the investigator in charge of the NTSB inquiry, said at the hearing. “But the action was too late, and the main gear of the underside of the aft fuselage struck the seawall.”
But that strategy from outside groups has rankled some who don’t want to be held responsible for shutting down the government if the strategy doesn’t work.
Many in the crowd roared with approval.
In the end, the debate in the House was tame by comparison with Boehner’s criticism of Republican-favoring outside groups that at times have been more of an obstacle to him than Democrats.
When a friend who was still at Merrill called and asked Vitkay if she’d be interested in subbing for her during a four-month leave, Vitkay said she was eager to return, even as a temp.
We have a golden opportunity to dramatically reform our criminal progressive tax system to either a single rate Flat Tax or Fair Tax without any caveats.
Two days before Christmas, as her quest for an affordable mortgage entered its fifth year, Bank of America sent the 65-year-old retired nurse another foreclosure notice – her fourth.
Goodbye lines, goodbye
The warehouse gym, located in the back right corner of the Garden State Industrial Park of , N.J., does not register on GPS screens or . It stands over 5,000 square feet, an all-encompassing facility replete with battle ropes, a 30-yard strip of turf for sprints and an equipment cage with a sign on it that reads: “Please don’t feed the animals.”
The restaurant offers two varieties of bird: “Classic” and skinless “Mama Els'” made with crumbled crackers. Despite the missing skin, the Mama Els’ light, crisp coating ironically resembles and tastes far more like traditional fried chicken than its spookily dark-skinned oily alternative. The savory meat is moist and the batter crunches almost like the real thing. Almost.
Organizers ruled out a complete ban on mobile phones as impractical, but said they were using Facebook, television and radio to promote the anti-selfie message in the run-up to the next event on February 16.
The Goodreads Choice Awards are unique in being the only awards to be voted upon by the reader, and while Rowling’s novel was roundly criticized upon its release, it would appear to have made a better impression upon the general reading public.
What, exactly, is that message-and what accounts for its mass appeal? Now that Billy is 95, I wonder: is there anyone who can fill his shoes?
If a teacher tells you ours is a Democracy, they should not be teaching American history. If a politician tells you this, they should never be in-trusted any government position.