You're taking this too lightly. FAR too lightly. This could single handedly lead to a mass exodus of folks from the game shortly after release. Why? What happens when you HAVE to spend real world cash to purchase gear to be even remotely competitive in pvp? And Blizzard saying that there is nothing to worry about, since there will be the option to use in-game gold. Oh yeah? Anyone remember what happened to the value of "gold" in Diablo 2? I was a pretty hardcore D2 player, like very very hardcore. The level of care that Blizzard showed with the game when it came to hacking and duping items was just absurd. And now we're just supposed to assume they'll have a fix for it, when in reality the only thing that is different from then and now is that they are owned by a money grubbing, greenback obsessed company. I'm not completely certain that they will be able to keep gold a real commodity in-game. The term "slippery slope" again comes to mind, and has multiple times in the calendar year 2011 when it comes to Activision/Blizzard, not just from me, but from the WoW community as a whole. I guarantee you this is a test run for something, and if not WoW, something else in the future.

TL:DR :

This is ActiBlizzard's first foray into the dangerous, deadly game of microtransaction gaming, and once they get a taste for blood, they won't stop.

Don:

While your other comments are not worth a response, I can highlight here that Diablo 3 PvP will most likely come in one of two flavours:

1) Enter-at-own-risk, admitting "yup, cash shop's out there", not leaderboarded or supported at all on their end, defining Diablo's niche as "very not WoW" on this front. Bliz quote: "We're telling the fans and people who know about it, that part of the rules of this game are different. If you're a person that's really hardcore about that, that 'I will not play any game where people can use real money to get an advantage,' then at least we're being up front and honest about it."

2) somehow moderated with PvP gear and/or a block on RL purchased advantages, properly supported, leaderboards official, etc, etc.

And that's all I'll say on that. Otherwise not feeding the troll. Have a nice day. :)

@ DonNochay -

The "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy
In other words, it's completely invalid.

Not that I think this will reduce your apparent paranoia, but I do try to help people when I can.

I agree with your comment except the part about WoW being an MMO esport. While it is a popular draw, most "real" pvp'ers and esporters are on Starcraft 2, where it's much much more about skill than about team composition, and the "balance" is generally much more even, since there is really no persistent PvE to speak of, the entire balance of the game revolves around pvp.

You'll note the hundreds if not thousands of livestreams of SC2 all over the place (jtv, xfire, etc), and the maybe 2-3 livestreams of wow pvp.

Starcraft 2 is also much more fun to watch and commentate on - there is no pole hugging/hiding for 20 minute BS that is so common in wow arenas.

Btw not saying that wow arena people are bad players, rather that wow pvp is generally regarded as a substandard way to show how good you are in pvp (due to balance issues and team makeup issues).

Pyro:

I will fully admit my not always clear hyperbole of WoW "being" an Esport, it's just my personal shortcut to define the highly competitive mindset (in PVE and PvP) WoW is based on, and totally just a nickname for me.

I do not believe WoW is an Esport. It does often seem to be the "Eport of MMOs", but that's just me being metaphorical. :)

Just a point here. We need to distinguish between Straw Man and Cause and Effect.

Slippery Slope is a fallacy when one says A will automatically be followed by B and then C.

Pointing out that implementing certain concepts [A] will take away some of the resistance to [B] is not.

So for example:

To say legalization of Marijuana** will** lead to children legally buying Crack is a Slippery Slope fallacy.

However, to say the legalization of Marijuana **can** lead to a weakening of the resolve to keep hard drugs illegal is not a Straw Man but rather is pointing out that legalizing one controlled substance for recreational use can lead to the effect of people seeking to legalizing other controlled substances for recreational use.

Gah...

Need to distinguish between Slippery Slope and Cause and Effect I meant to say.

Sorry for the brain malfunction