A couple weeks ago, users were celebrating an awesome win for getting Blizzard to finally implement public chat in the game. (Though many believe Bashiok's claim that it was just a mistake.) Whatever the case may be, it's considered a win.

"Blizzard listened to us! We get public chat! Now I can trade items with other players and I don't have to worry about using the RMAH!"

Is this really the case though? What if it's just simple Public Chat, but not intended for Trade Chat? What if trading between players will actually be discouraged or difficult?

If I were Blizzard and I wanted to encourage as much use of the RMAH as possible, I would restrict loot linking, eliminate ways to communicate effectively for trade-specific purposes, or make trading as challenging as possible (for example, poor trading security.) Using a "Trade Chat" system outside of the game (ie, in the lobby room), without the ability to link items, is a great way to do it. Or, one could also make it so that players can't create public games with customized titles (like how trading could be done in D2).

You only need one of these options. If you have secure trading methods, then eliminate trade related communication methods. If you have proper Trade Chat, make secure trading more difficult. You don't need to do all of them otherwise their intentions become too elaborate or obvious. When players question why, Blizzard can confidently tell them that they DO have methods in place to allow trading.

The average player will always travel the soft path. If there are two services available, but one has accessibility or functional issues, they'll go with the easier one. If character-to-character trading is available (and secure), but public chat is limited so that it doesn't support loot linking or gear sharing, it's not a very good service. If public chat has loot linking, but item trading is insecure, it's not a very good service. In both cases it's "bad service" planned in advanced to encourage customers to use a better service.

So, which is the better service.. player-to-player trading or the Auction House?

We really don't know anything about the future Trade Chat features, though. It could go either way. Bashiok had promised details in the near future, so it remains to be seen what Blizzard has in mind. If the chat or trading features are still limited by retail, then we have our answer. If not, then Blizzard will act accordingly to their customer's needs.

Nothing is set in stone at this point. In it's current disappointing state, it requires more forum outrage and complaining, and hopefully Blizzard will eventually implement chat the way players want. If they, however, are looking for every little way to squeeze as much use out of the RMAH as possible, then don't expect loot linking or any other kind of trading mechanisms (like customized public games) in the initial retail version. Besides, if Blizzard won't implement these changes, someone else will always find a way, like that alternative "trade chat" website.

Just as an added note, too, Bashiok happened to make a comment about the Chat system recently as well. Basically, it's not to expect any changes before release. So, this is something I might re-examine 6 months after release (as well how or if players can even engage in some form of public trading without an external website service). But atleast you can understand some of the motivations behind keeping the chat system the way it is. And judging by the SC2 Chat System, I'm not really expecting Blizzard to make any significant changes.

I hope that D3XCHANGE.COM webpage was still being worked on though. :)

* UPDATE (03/01/2012):

Just an interesting note. Recent data mining of Diablo 3 revealed that Blizzard did, in fact, create a UI within D3 for users who wanted to create a custom named public game. So this feature was once in the game, but has been removed. Guess we'll see if Blizzard puts it back in for retail.

Yesterday, I touched on the Shared Stash changes and how it could be used as a business opportunity to monetize slot size upgrades and many other in-game "services".

For example, if Blizzard were to make the gold-collecting pets an extremely rare drop, they would then be sold on the RMAH. Those pets are extremely useful in-game and would be highly sought after. In essence, you're paying for a gold collection service using real cash.

I liked the idea so much, that I've decided to expand upon it.

Here are a collection of virtual items that could have low drop rates, forcing them to be sold on the Real Money Auction House:

• Items or Scrolls that magically increased your Stash, Shared Stash, and Bag Space slots. For example, a "Scroll of Minor Bag Space" that increases your slots by 3.
• Rare summon scrolls for those gold collecting pets.
• Even more rare summoning scrolls that summon pets that gain +10% gold. Just like the Daeity pet. (Blizzard, hint hint.)
• Vendor potions that increase your selling or buying prices for a fixed time or fixed number of items.
• Salvaging potions that improve salvage results for a fixed time or fixed number of items. Same for better enchants, gems, etc.
• Remove Experience Shrines, and instead have rare "+15% XP Gain" potions.
• Rare potions of Magic Find and Gold Find that complement your gear. These would be time based spells (e.g. 30 minutes.)
• Collecting multiple rare potions that can be mixed together to create new and improved effects.
• Selling "normal" Paid Services but as virtual items instead. Like Paid Name Changes, but using the RMAH instead.
• A portal scroll (like in Torchlight) where the player is transported to a small zone with above average loot and/or a guaranteed rare spawn. Because players might be paying $1-5 for something like this, it's sort of their version of DLC since it's an area inaccessible to most players unless they purchase it.
• The return of the Nephalem Cube and the Cauldron of Jordan, except that they're rare drops, they're tiered, and they require rare "upgrades". For example, you can only break down level 10 items when you get the initial item. You purchase pieces or upgrades to the item on the RMAH, and then you can break down up-to level 20 items, etc. Sort of like a cash sink vs gold sink.
• Mailbox upgrade items. Several items that allow you to upgrade your personal mailbox and it's appearance. Allows you to send more items at once and lowers postage fees.

If you have any other clever ideas for a paid in-game "service" (like experience gain, more cash, or faster travel), let me know and I might add it. :)

These items are so useful, especially for farmers and hardcore RMAH users, that Blizzard doesn't even have to restrict the items or try to force users to sell them on the RMAH. They'll be so rare and useful that they'll ALWAYS end up on the RMAH.

Other than "services", the Diablo 3 developer team has also been working through multiple iterations of the rune system. Skills could easily be bought from vendors, learned, or be personalized, but I think their intention is to make Runes sellable on the RMAH. The highest tiered runes will only be available on the RMAH, unless you're really lucky. This forces users to pay (in cash) to get new skills. I think this was the main reason why they have been having so many rune problems.. they've been forced to monetize the skill system, which significantly limits their creativity.

* UPDATE:

On February 7, 2012 Bashiok was posed the question about the removal of items (like scrolls) from the game, and if Blizzard planned on monetizing them in any way.

His response was:

@WilliamCairns1 We didn’t remove them so we could charge people for them later, if that’s your question.

So, this is the Blizzard Promise™. The Cauldron, Cube, ID scrolls, summoning scrolls, etc. will NOT be item drops when they return, players will get them for free (they won't cost gold or cash), and they will be "soulbound" (cannot be traded in any way.)

Predicted last month (Link), this is also a good "sneak peek" of other upcoming virtual items that will be made available at the SC2 store. You'll also see similar virtual items in Diablo 3 no doubt.

Blizzcon 2010 attendees (online and IRL) will receive an exclusive In-Game WoW Pet and SC2 players will receive an exclusive Character Portrait (Murloc Marine) and have special unit model changes made (e.g. decals on your armor.)

If you really want these decals for your SC2 models and you can't attend - don't worry. There will be plenty of other options available when the SC2 store opens and you can have your own choice of $10-25 decals (or some other form of unique model change or modified texture). =]

Blizzard might even donate the initial proceeds to charity!

At Blizzcon 2010 (this coming October), there is also supposed to be a "HUGE" Diablo 3 announcement. Game Director Jay Wilson said, "I can say that this Blizzcon, in terms of Diablo news, will be the biggest one that we've ever had."

I really haven't been following Diablo 3 that much, and I don't have any inside contacts that are working on that specific project there so I have no idea what the announcement will be.

But, I am completely expecting to be disappointed.

Here's what I'm thinking off the top of my head (in order of most likely in the unlikely event the news will indeed be "huge"):

1. It better not be anything stupid, like introducing multiple new classes. "Huge news everyone! There are two new classes!".. "Just kidding.. there's THREE! OMG!" *cheers and yelling from the crowd and many erections*
2. Maybe #1 but also throw in some new "features" to promote, like crafting skills, a PVP arena (or other PVP related stuff similar to WoW), new spells (also similar to WoW), hired NPCs, and/or some web and mobile components that are tied into the game.
3. That D3 is ahead of schedule and we'll see it sooner than expected like next year. (They won't give an exact date though.)
4. Diablo 3 will not just release for the PC, but also the PS3 and XBOX360. Yay.
5. Diablo 3 will be an On-Demand gaming platform (improbable though, as it's too soon.)

I can't see there being any other kind of "big news". He also said that it will be the "biggest one we've ever had", so I really hope it's not just the introduction of 1 new class.. but it probably will be.

As predicted last month, Battle.net is introducing new paid services for Starcraft 2.

Namely, Paid Name Services. =]

Your first name change is free and subsequent name changes will be accompanied by a fee.

Here's the direct link to Blizzard's news announcement: Source

This is really just the beginning and there will certainly be more paid services and other forms of micro-transactions incoming for Blizzard's other new games too.

What's interesting though is that Blizzard stated that SC2 would never have any micro-transactions. And, a long time ago they also said the same thing ("Blizzard Says No Micro-Transactions for WoW") about World of Warcraft. (Source 1 & Source 2)

When I talked about Blizzard's directives to monetize Battle.net (how Blizzard doesn't always tell the "truth" and I predicted that SC2 would have paid services like name changing) it met with a little bit of hostility. =]

I allow anonymous comments on the blog so that people can easily make posts without having to create new accounts. However, there have been many comments (Blizzard fanboys and Blizzard themselves) that I've had to delete because of swearing, but mostly because they provide no insight, supporting documentation, or signs of intelligence (e.g. "ur wrong!!"). It could also be that "Blizzard indoctrination" that I've been writing about. Apparently, it was a "retarded theory" that Starcraft 2 would have paid services though (that's actually what the Blizzard employee posted.) =]

So far, it looks like that YouTube video hit ~30,000 views in a just a couple days after posting. =]
It's a classic "Blizzard Meeting" parody that's been done in the past, my favorite being the Fangtooth Paladin clip.
Other than that, on the side I've been busy collecting information on Blizzard's Next-Gen MMO. I have a few contacts at Blizzard and I've been putting together some pieces (it's not A LOT, but enough to get a good idea of what they have planned). It sounds pretty cool actually, but I'll have more details within the next few weeks I hope.

With the launch of SC2 early next week, I'm really looking forwards to one little thing that many have forgotten: Battle.net in-game ads.

I've been really curious how exactly they're going to pull it off. Of course, it probably won't be implemented right away so as not to spoil the beginner's experience - but you should see something implemented in the upcoming months.

In case you've forgotten (or weren't aware), in-game ads have been updated in Blizzard's TOU documents and Blizzard has hired Microsoft's Massive Inc. to delivery the advertisements. You'll see ads placed mostly on in-game posters, billboards, buildings, or really any texture.

DISCLOSURES; THIRD PARTY FEATURES. Massive Inc..

Blizzard's Games and the Service may incorporate technology of Massive Incorporated ("Massive"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), that enables in-game advertising, and the display of other similar in-game objects, which are downloaded temporarily to your personal computer and replaced during online game play. As part of this process, Massive may collect some information about the game and the advertisements delivered to you, as well as standard information that is sent when your personal computer or game console connects to the Internet including your Internet protocol (IP) address. Massive will use this information to transmit and measure in-game advertising, as well as to improve the products and services of Massive and its affiliates. None of the information collected by Massive will be used to identify you. For additional details regarding Massive's in-game advertising practices, please see Massive's In-Game Advertising privacy statement at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=122085&clcid=0x409. The trademarks and copyrighted material contained in all in-game advertising are the property of the respective owners. Portions of the Service are © 2008 Massive Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Note: A new advertising page is being created for BNet 2.0, but you can still see the old one at: http://classic.battle.net/advertising/advertising-info.aspx

When Rob Pardo first announced Blizzard's new directive (making more money from Battle.net), a lot of people were worried that he meant subscription based fees for SC2 and Diablo 3. However, Blizzard has promised that it is not their intention.

But Blizzard isn't exactly known for keeping their promises.

In World of Warcraft, for example, a lot of the promised content that was never implemented comes to mind. They also said that there would be no micro-transactions for World of Warcraft.

• 2008: "No microtransactions in World of Warcraft"
• 2009: "Blizzard Introduces Microtransactions"
• 2009: "Wow's Players Guide to microtransactions"

Regarding Diablo 3, Rob Pardo said in the interview: "Here's the way I would put it. We're definitely not looking at turning Diablo into a subscription based game."

That leaves it open to interpretation, in case they change their minds later. It's "corporate-speak", and you'll see that a lot of that same wording from gaming industry representatives:

• "We currently do not have any plans for.."
• "We're not looking at it right now.."
• "Presently, we have no plans to.."

Rockstar Games said the same about Red Dead Redemption for the PC. Guess we'll see..

Now personally, I don't think SC2 or Diablo 3 will be subscription based.. but Battle.Net might be, especially because of their new corporate direction and vision. The "free online versions" of SC2 and Diablo 3 will always be an available option, but BNet could incorporate subscription based fees for premium content and features (e.g. to make things more "convenient" for users like priority queuing or special access to events and competitions.)

Just like WoW, they're going to milk BNet for all it's worth.. virtual sales (micro-transactions), real sales (merchandising), and targeted advertising. I'm sure you'll see a Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 "store" in the future.. specialty pets, premium maps, customization of characters (paid name changes), special upgrades, or unit model changes. I can't wait to spend $25 to change my Terran unit armor from blue to red!

With the social networking features being added, it's going to significantly increase ad-targeting potential as well as increase sales (users inviting friends, promoting the game, etc.) It's funny how so many corporations are trying to cash in on each other's markets. Twitter wants to get into advertising, Google wants to be a social platform, Facebook wants to be a search engine, and Blizzard wants it all. (Blizzard's new social features are also being heavily incorporated into their "Next Gen MMO" but I'll talk about that later..)

Starcraft 2 LAN Play - Why was it really removed?

I often wonder if the monetization of BNet was the deciding factor in leaving LAN play out of Starcraft 2.

You see, when users are playing LAN Starcraft 2, there's really no purpose to being online - or should I say, that's a common belief. An internet connection might just get in the way of gameplay, so independent networks are created for small/medium LAN parties (30-50 people on one DSL will plug up the pipe and even be against ISP terms of service). Usually though, LAN parties will have internet access. But Blizzard can't take that chance! If users aren't connected to the internet, then they won't be receiving in-game advertisements.. all of that potential revenue lost.. it's completely unacceptable.

It's easier just to remove LAN play, save some money on development, and blame it on the classic piracy scapegoat.

Here was Blizzard's (Bob Colayco, Blizzard PR) official response regarding LAN play:

"We don't currently plan to support LAN play with StarCraft II, as we are building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with StarCraft II and future Blizzard Entertainment games. While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy."

Blizzard also said, "We want to make an online experience so good, that you won't want to have a LAN party." (Source)

So the reason for removing LAN play is because it doesn't fit in with the direction of BNet services (interesting.. like ad-targeting perhaps?), it will ENSURE a quality multiplayer experience, and it will safeguard against piracy.

* UPDATE: I've created a visual aid (Fair Use FTW)


But how can you have a "quality multiplayer experience" if you lose internet connectivity, are under heavy latency, Blizzard servers crash, or your ISP has issues? Can you ENSURE 100% uptime of servers and personal internet connections? Bottlenecking the users does not ensure quality.

Regarding piracy, there is no safeguard against piracy. (Unless it's a streaming game where no data is stored locally.) Every single game has been cracked and there has never been any method of "copy protection" that has actually "protected against copying." Copy protection is a myth.. there are "copy protection approaches" but that's it. In fact, removing copy protection measures actually makes it more convenient for the user and improves their gaming experience (case in point: No-CD cracks.)

If Blizzard doesn't implement a much-need feature, then someone ELSE will implement it.

Look at Kali for example, it filled a void because of a missing feature.

And then there's BNetD and PvPGN which are fully available (and open-source) BNet emulators that allow LAN play of Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Brood War, Diablo 1 and Diablo 2. There are thousands of BNet emulated servers out there providing the service that everyone wants.

Future versions (and probably alternative software) will support SC2 and Diablo 3. Blizzard knows this, there will be LAN play and they won't be the ones providing it.

History has proven that removing features to prevent piracy will actually increase piracy. Those who forget the past and all that.

(On a side note.. wouldn't it be funny if private BNet servers implemented their own in-game advertisements? WoW gold sellers would be a nice touch.)

* UPDATE:

Two months after that video was released, Bobby Kotick has now decided NOT to implement in-game advertisements into Starcraft 2. I guess they changed their minds after the massive uproar (just like mandatory Real ID).

"There was a time where we thought advertising and sponsorship was a big opportunity, but what we realized is our customers are paying $60 for a game or paying a monthly subscription fee and they don't really want to be barraged with sponsorship or advertising," Kotick explained.

They were fully intending to implement in-game ads, they had a relationship with Massive, Inc. all set, but now the plan has been cancelled, their Terms of Use has been revised again, and that new Battle.net (2.0) advertising page was pulled too. =]