Ragnaros US First Kill by vodka, Diablo 3 Beta, Auction House API, Artworks

[Sunshine]

They have high resolution gallery from press-kit.

The press kit images are the ones from the news post yesterday; these are additional screenshots (including character auction house) which weren't there.

[Shakalager]

Big grats to Vodka. I like their picture. Good idea with Lil Rag :P

[Altek Heresy]

fateful? (or faithful?)

I think you heavily misread into the nature of ethical behavior. Especially in business. A leader of a company is morally obligated to maximize profits. Their chief responsibility is to share holders, not customers. Many business leaders even believe this responsibility is so strong that it is morally acceptable to engage in socially immoral practice so long as you remain responsible to this mandate.

The reality is simple the cost of developing a game like Diablo 3 is astronomical in comparison to say Diablo 2. Furthermore the profit margin that a single retail sale provides in contrast to say WoW Subscriptions is so minuscule that creating a game like Diablo 3 becomes trivial and wasteful from a business point of view. Thus Blizzard was forced to come up with another source of income. (Note: they plan to do the same with Starcraft 2 via the map store)

All that said their solution for this I feel is far more elegant than other company's pay to progress models as they aren't just creating a system where they have a license to print money. Instead, they give the players a venue to choose how they wish to play, whether it will cost them money, make them money, or be monetarily neutral. Furthermore they have created a stream of revenue for themselves that will give them incentive to continually add new content and items to the game as that will lead to more auction house sales and more income for Blizzard. Thus because of this I imagine we will see content updates much like WoW without the monthly subscription.

In all, however, there is nothing morally wrong about their move. From both a business and social viewpoint they are creating a system that will earn them more income that will at the same time be giving the players the freedom to play how they like best. Some players don't want to spend 8 hours/day magic find farming, others do. Both will have incentives to play the way they like and outlets to allow them to thrive in that environment.

Just because other companies have done it differently before Blizzard doesn't make Blizzard corrupt for changing the model. Are Apple and Google also immoral for charging for their mobile devices then charging for the apps as well? If Blizzard had announced the game would be free but they would be selling weapons and armor themselves I would not have played Diablo 3. However, this slightly different approach not only intrigues me but seems like a much better solution.

Also to close, if you compare the longevity of Blizzard games to competitors they are by far the most cost effective form of entertainment there is. Some players have been playing sc1 or D2 for a decade on the original $100 cost for game and expand. Even playing soccer/football outside would have costed more just on the cost of replacing your soccer ball and running shoes several times over the last decade.

If Apple and Google charged you for every time you called someone who didn’t have either an Iphone or Nexus phone would you use it? Would you be ok with getting a charge for say sending your business card to a colleague via Bluetooth or email on top of whatever you pay on a monthly plan? The fact that they charge for additional apps doesn’t deter people from using it as a cell phone, which is the primary use for it. I completely grasp the business mechanics in play. I did state that this is a great business model that they are building. And yes the company’s loyalty is with share/stock holders not consumers. But at what point will you/I/anyone stop and say "Ok they are going a little too far with this". Leading innovation is always good. A company stating that they “will never” do a certain thing and then condone it on the other end is wrong. And again, this is just the push that will set everything else into motion.

[Oznob]

no boss took them that many wipes to get down, not even H LK or Alone in the Darkness.

As far as H LK they had weeks and weeks to get gear from the gating in H ICC, so H LK can't compare imo.

[furydeath]

They also take THREE cuts from anything you sell and its just like wow you really think you wont get under cut? Well guess what you still have to pay blizzard for putting up that unsold item that was under cut by $0.01-0.50.

[rezoacken]

I'm okay with their AH system and feel I will just wait to see if it becomes so decadent as some people believe it will be or if it will be just like D2 with people willing to pay money to get stuff and people that do not. If you were forced to pay money at one point or the other I wouldn't bother with the game. If some rich guys are willing to pay money to probably poor ones because they provide gold or items to increase their childish e-peen so be it. I don't believe it will change much and if rich guys go around in unique items feeling pretty so be it (just like it is already on D2 or F2P games), I'm going to play with friends anyway and D3 has little to none real competitive aspect anyway. On a side note this is a win win solution for blizzard, make these transactions safer for the user AND get money out of it (through fees) and it's quite obvious blizzard is not some holy company... get real.

[Swizzle]

As far as H LK they had weeks and weeks to get gear from the gating in H ICC, so H LK can't compare imo.

When I'm comparing to the amount of time spent on a single boss, not an entire damn instance, you bet your sweet ass I can. H LK took them 100-200 or so wipes ON HIM, he only lasted as long as he did due to the limited attempts. If those were gone, H LK would have been killed in a day. Try as hard as you want to lessen the fact that Paragon has said that Ragnaros is the hardest boss battle Blizzard has made in years, but seriously, stop trying to make it seem like Firelands is a joke. Seven guilds have cleared it. SEVEN, out of 23,000+ registered guilds. I'd say that's a pretty damn challenging and successful raid.

---------- Post added 2011-08-02 at 06:50 PM ----------

They also take THREE cuts from anything you sell and its just like wow you really think you wont get under cut? Well guess what you still have to pay blizzard for putting up that unsold item that was under cut by $0.01-0.50.

You mean the way real life financial transactions work? Those damn blasphemers working off real economic principle as a for-profit business.

[Buckwald]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'll see ALL of you at launch.

[Jiggles]

I think you heavily misread into the nature of ethical behavior. Especially in business. A leader of a company is morally obligated to maximize profits.

You're conflating business ethics with morality. They're not the same. You can engage in behavior that is immoral but doesn't violate ethics rules. Conversely, you can engage in behavior that violates ethics rules, but is moral.

Many business leaders even believe this responsibility is so strong that it is morally acceptable to engage in socially immoral practice so long as you remain responsible to this mandate.

Sure. "The ends justify the means" is a common rationalization. It doesn't mean that that practice was any less immoral.

In all, however, there is nothing morally wrong about their move. From both a business and social viewpoint they are creating a system that will earn them more income that will at the same time be giving the players the freedom to play how they like best.

It's moral because Blizzard figured out how to make more money without pissing off the majority of their fan base? Yeahhh...

However, this slightly different approach not only intrigues me but seems like a much better solution.

It's a "solution" the the "problem" of "How do we keep making record profits for Activision?"

Also to close, if you compare the longevity of Blizzard games to competitors they are by far the most cost effective form of entertainment there is. Some players have been playing sc1 or D2 for a decade on the original $100 cost for game and expand.

Exactly. Which is why some people are looking at Blizzard's old games and then wondering why, since WoW, Blizzard has been behaving in such a different manner.

Even playing soccer/football outside would have costed more just on the cost of replacing your soccer ball and running shoes several times over the last decade.

And I'm sure running your computer for a decade didn't cost any electricity. And that your computer and related equipment didn't require any repairs/replacement over that period.

[Swizzle]

You're conflating business ethics with morality. They're not the same. You can engage in behavior that is immoral but doesn't violate ethics rules. Conversely, you can engage in behavior that violates ethics rules, but is moral.

When you're in business, you only care about ethics and legality. As long as you're doing your job without causing any harm to consumers, shareholders, or employees, then the feelings of people on forums doesn't mean shit to you. Though, to get a bit semantic here... "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation", that's the first definition of ethics. So...if they are acting ethically, they are being moral. It's not like Blizzard is bending you over, violating your posterior, then clapping while you give them more money. They are offering a service that one may or may not participate in parallel to another identical feature which no one has qualms with. Grow up and welcome to the real world.

[Jiggles]

When you're in business, you only care about ethics and legality. As long as you're doing your job without causing any harm to consumers, shareholders, or employees, then the feelings of people on forums doesn't mean shit to you.

If those people on the forums are your customers, you should care. The customer is certainly not always right, but if you piss off enough of your customers, then you are hurting your company and thus your employees/shareholders. I'm not saying Blizzard is anywhere near that line, but if Blizzard doesn't see any pushback from customers, then Blizzard will keep pushing the line to see how much more profit they can make.

Though, to get a bit semantic here... "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation", that's the first definition of ethics. So...if they are acting ethically, they are being moral.

But we're not talking about "ethics" and "morals" without context. We're talking about business ethics and personal/societal morals. Those are not the same. Use the words interchangeably if you want, but what's ethical from a business's standpoint isn't necessarily moral from a personal or societal standpoint. As you said, all a business cares about is not violating legal rules; all an officer/director cares about is not violating legal or ethical rules (or more honestly: not getting caught).

When Poster A says, "Company X acted immorally when they decided to charge 1000x more for a service than it actually cost Company X."
A response that, "Company X isn't violating any laws or established ethical rules," completely misses the point. Poster A isn't evaluating Company X's behavior on legal or ethical rules of business, but on personal or societal morals.

It's not like Blizzard is bending you over, violating your posterior, then clapping while you give them more money. They are offering a service that one may or may not participate in parallel to another identical feature which no one has qualms with. Grow up and welcome to the real world.

Sigh. You grow up. Silly exaggerations that that do not aid in any serious discussion. As you so eloquently put above, companies will do virtually anything to maximize profits, provided it doesn't lead to prosecution or a director/officer getting caught in a serious ethics violation. That means that Blizzard has a duty (ethical, moral, whatever) to keep adding more and more ways to get money from its customers. If dissatisfied customers don't express their dissatisfaction to Blizzard, then Blizzard has no reason to slow down or stop this practice.

[Venteus]

Finally, a real guild downs it. Congrats Vodka!

[Menegroth]

How is this morally wrong? Let’s see you take a model that up to 6-12 months ago only existed in Free to play games and add a full retail value to it and subscription. Knowing full well that this model works in an environment where you do not pay full price first then milk your customer base with items that will have a direct effect on said game. They know this, I hope you realize this as well. They know it goes against the moral standards that are inherited into the current model of free to play. And they went ahead and institute it into their full retail game model to maximize profit. It’s pretty simple. Whether you disagree with moral conduct in this regard or not it’s your personal choice.
But I see it as a cash-grab with disregards to their fateful (often blind) fan base. And please keep in mind that this is just one door of many paths that we will see unfolding in the years to come.

Except D3 DOES NOT have a subscription fee. Also this model DID NOT EXIST IN F2P games. F2P games have had a micro-transaction method, where you buy in-game items directly from the developer. As in, they were NOT found in the game, and are NOT being sold by other players. This simply allows for the items that players dig up in game to be traded to other players for real world cash. With some feed associated for some profit, as well as a need for fees in any auction based system.

You really don't know what you're talking about do you? Just blindly bashing anything that blizzard could potentially make a profit on.

[chuck123]

Did someone in these posts really use Apple (out of all companies) and ehtical in the same sentence ? i loled. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Apple is one of the by far worst companies when it comes to beeing ethically "correct".

[lilbuddhaman]

Did someone in these posts really use Apple (out of all companies) and ehtical in the same sentence ? i loled. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Apple is one of the by far worst companies when it comes to beeing ethically "correct".

This, 1000x this.

Also, I like Valve's method of in game purchasing with TF2. Bought items are permanently marked (and untradeable), letting people clearly see the difference between someone who has "earned" the item and someone who simply shelled out some cash. D3's system is is different, but shares some similarities, and I would hope that there in fact is some kind of negative impact to buying an item over getting it yourself. This won't happen of course....

Lastly, I fear that every 6 months we'll have a mini-gear-reset (ala wow) where the "super awesome proc ring" or whatever will suddenly be nerfed to make the "NEW super awesome proc necklace" more attractive. Or random mechanic/balance changes, or huge changes to stats "because we didn't expect players to scale like this, even though we created this entire game and knew exactly what we were making from the start but still think the consumers are idiots and will believe this bullshit excuse as a real one so we have a reason for you to play/buy our latest greatest".

you know ?

[Shyardik]

Grats to Vodka! Glad they got US first.

[Deleted]

They also take THREE cuts from anything you sell and its just like wow you really think you wont get under cut? Well guess what you still have to pay blizzard for putting up that unsold item that was under cut by $0.01-0.50.

As far as i know the second 2 "cuts" are one and the same (wouldnae quote me on that), and you get a certain amount of free AH posts per week per account.

---------- Post added 2011-08-04 at 12:40 AM ----------

If Apple and Google charged you for every time you called someone who didn’t have either an Iphone or Nexus phone would you use it? Would you be ok with getting a charge for say sending your business card to a colleague via Bluetooth or email on top of whatever you pay on a monthly plan? The fact that they charge for additional apps doesn’t deter people from using it as a cell phone, which is the primary use for it. I completely grasp the business mechanics in play. I did state that this is a great business model that they are building. And yes the company’s loyalty is with share/stock holders not consumers. But at what point will you/I/anyone stop and say "Ok they are going a little too far with this". Leading innovation is always good. A company stating that they “will never” do a certain thing and then condone it on the other end is wrong. And again, this is just the push that will set everything else into motion.

I'm pretty sure they said they would never sell anything that would give an ingame advantage. I feel like bolding and cap'sing the next part.
They are not selling these items, anything that is buyable has to be crafted or found by another player. I've seen a lot of posts concerning this and I'm assuming none of said posters understand the loot system from the diablo series or may never have played it. If i have picked you up wrong on your intent I apologize.

PS. On a side note they are taking the power from farming sites and putting it into the players hands. So long D2jsp.

[Mortymer]

Why are helper NPCs sooooooo freaking big? I know visibility is an issue, but seriously...

[starfarer]

Grats to Vodka. We got him!

[Strakha]

oops meant to post that in the other post