News

Former Diablo III director states the auction houses were a mistake
Posted: 29.03.2013 05:13 by Comments: 15
According to former Diablo III game director Jay Wilson, the auction houses, both gold and real money, "really hurt the game," distorting the game's item value and game focus.

Blizzard thought that only a small percentage of players would use the auction houses, but it ended up dominating the game, as nearly every single player used the auction house and half of them used them regularly.

Item rewards became meaningless, according to Wilson, since such items could be found easily at the auction houses. With that, money became a bigger motivator than actually killing Diablo.

Wilson stated, "I think we would turn it off if we could, (but it's) not as easy as that." Considering Blizzard gets a cut out of the real money auction house sales, it's not surprising.

The PlayStation 3 version of Diablo III won't have any auction houses.
Source: GamesRadar
Related games: Diablo III (PC)
Game advertisements by <a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com" target="_blank">Game Advertising Online</a> require iframes.

Comments

By nocutius (SI Elite) on Mar 29, 2013
nocutius
It's not like nobody told them, they basically legalized gold farming and made it the main point of the game. Just brilliant.
By SiyaenSokol (SI Elite) on Mar 29, 2013
SiyaenSokol
Agreed... now they think that they will be solving the problem by not giving console players the auction house... it just means that they will be appreciating the game more.

It's all about the money... not about the games anymore.
By styvan01 (SI Newbie) on Mar 29, 2013
styvan01
Of course he will say that seeing how he left Blizzard because D3 was a flop. He would do anything to ruin the reputation. Call me a Blizz fanboy which is true, but they have done some things I havent been happy about. But still if I left my place of employment because of a negative experience, I know I would.
By JonahFalcon (SI Elite) on Mar 29, 2013
JonahFalcon
He didn't leave. He was reassigned.
By Voqar (SI Core Member) on Mar 29, 2013
Voqar
Two things are sad here.

One that bliz, as amazing as they can be, made so many brutal design blunders with D3 (forced online, RM AH being biggies).

Two that so many players are pieces of human trash that are fine with buying their way thru games these days instead of actually playing games, experiencing games, and earning their game rewards thru playing.

The whole wave of F2P games typically boil down to sanctioned cheating (aka pay 2 win) where the hosting company facilitates cheaters and charges them for it. It's beyond lame.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Mar 29, 2013
herodotus
Yes, the Auction House took the focus of the actual game and threw it starkly on trading and buying gold. Where's the fun in that, unless you're a stock exchange junkie?
I'd have to say from what I've seen that most design choices were and are bad. If they'd just made what everyone wanted - a third entry of the classic title, with buffed graphics and gameplay. It could have been released 3 years ago in that condition and still be a hit today.
By wolfsrain (SI Member) on Mar 29, 2013
wolfsrain
Why most of the people are still thinking that the teams from the old Blizzard that gave us Diablo 1-2, the original Starcraft and Warcraft 1-3 are still around?! The creators of the old classics left the building in the Vivendi age. Neither Starcraft 2 nor Diablo 3 are linked to their original creators...

Diablo 3 makes games like Titan Quest or Dungeon Siege 1+2 look really good. And those titles were great Diablo clones, for the love of God....
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Mar 30, 2013
herodotus
Vivendi age? Vivendi own Activision Blizzard - they are the parent company. But I do know what you mean,...when Vivendi was a powerhouse Publisher ("Ground Control" etc) and not a media conglomerate.
Blizzard have a serious problem with their teams these days, and this stretches to "WoW" and "Starcraft". They cannot stop tweaking games, changing colour palettes, textures ad nauseum and if left to their own devices these games would actually never be released. They've become more of an experimental bunch at Blizzarse, and the experiments keeps failing, or at least falling far short of the high expectations generated by the overly long development cycles.

It is only for the aura that still surrounds the brandname of Blizzard (for no good reason) that they are still held in anything close to high regard. If this was Relic, for instance, they'd be grabbed by the throat and belted.
By Hammerjinx (SI Core) on Mar 30, 2013
Hammerjinx
I've been playing Titan Quest again recently - honestly it's kinda boring. The abilities just don't feel that engaging. The only thing it has going for it over D3 is length. D3 was far too short, imo.
By JonahFalcon (SI Elite) on Mar 30, 2013
JonahFalcon
By SiyaenSokol (SI Elite) on Mar 31, 2013
SiyaenSokol
Just downloaded the game yesterday, and it does look incredibly good.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Apr 01, 2013
herodotus
Have to second that one Chosen.
As for the visual look of "Diablo III", from what I've seen Relic delivered almost the same visuals, only sharper in "DoW II" which came out a few years back. In other words, Blizzard are lagging as per usual.
By noobst3R (SI Core) on Apr 02, 2013
noobst3R
I started Path Of Exile. Isn't too bad, but to be honest, I'd rather boot up my old PC and play Diablo II itself.

It's fun if you're low on cash and want something Diablo alike but you can't handle the graphics of the old games.
By Hammerjinx (SI Core) on Apr 02, 2013
Hammerjinx
I'm honestly not sure what the fans of Titan Quest really like about it. So many of the abilities either replace your main attack, are passive, or are highly situational and/or have long cooldowns. You get drops in Act2 that you were rejecting from early Act1. The shops almost universally have nothing even slightly interesting, almost entirely eliminating the point of gold.

It's not bad, but there's just nothing about it that stands out to me.