[WOW Vanity Pets] I am Weak and Succumbed...

[Gaffa]

...the new microtransaction-only Pandaren and L'il KT pets are mine, mine, MINE!!!

Darn, they're adorable!

[Copernicus]

http://us.blizzard.com/store/browse.xml?f=c:5,c:33

$10 for a Kung-Fu Panda or a Lil' K'T.

Looks like the pets also have special animations associated with them and in-game actions.

I'm surprised it took Blizzard this long to add them to the game. I'm also surprised that they aren't part of the CCG.


And I am outraged! Outraged I say! I'll never buy... oh hey, is that a plush Murky?

http://i36.tinypic.com/34rx2j4.jpg

[Seroster]

$10!? That's not what I'd call a "micro" transaction.

[djtacoman]

I just can't do it. I would like a Pandaren Monk, or maybe a Lil' KT, but I can't justify paying for it. I like doing something in game that earns it.

There will be those who scrutinize the purchasers of these pets, but the $5 to charity portion of the Pandaren Monk will allow the Holier Than Thou attitude to prevail. I've got to say, if you want to give $5 to charity, go do that. Don't spend $10 on an in-game pet and say that because the company you bought it from gave $5 to charity as a result of your purchase that you've donated $5 to a charity. In fact, if you want to donate to a charity, do that. Go without an in-game pet so some kid who's not going to see 2011 can do something fun before he/she dies. Don't justify supporting microtransactions by saying it's a donation to charity.

I'm just really not for microtransactions at all and see this as a harbinger of the things to come. It's happened in other games and it's going to happen here. It's just a matter of time.

[Gaffa]

I'm happy to have supported a charity I approve of, but that's not the reason I bought the pets. I bought the pets because I wanted them, and I have enough disposable income to pay for cute electronic imaginary world pets.

I'm actually seeing this as more a way to cut out the CCG middle-man here, as they're functionally not different from the rare codes you'd get in the WOW CCG for vanity mounts, pets, lawn furniture, and so on.

[JustJo]

Please stop calling this microtransactions, they don't even use that word on the official site :)


I'm pondering buying one for my other half as a surprise extra xmas present. I think he'd get a kick out of opening his mailbox and finding it there.

[Eurhetemec]

I just can't do it. I would like a Pandaren Monk, or maybe a Lil' KT, but I can't justify paying for it. I like doing something in game that earns it.

There will be those who scrutinize the purchasers of these pets, but the $5 to charity portion of the Pandaren Monk will allow the Holier Than Thou attitude to prevail. I've got to say, if you want to give $5 to charity, go do that. Don't spend $10 on an in-game pet and say that because the company you bought it from gave $5 to charity as a result of your purchase that you've donated $5 to a charity. In fact, if you want to donate to a charity, do that. Go without an in-game pet so some kid who's not going to see 2011 can do something fun before he/she dies. Don't justify supporting microtransactions by saying it's a donation to charity.

It's really kind of genius on Blizzard's part in a sort of "MWHAHAHAHAHA!" kind of way. The sort of people (with no insult to the OP) who are prone to spending money without much thought are precisely the kind of people who will not even consider that, they could, y'know, give $10 to charity instead of giving $5 to charity and $5 to Blizzard, and who will indeed by "Holier than Thou" about it (even if it's the first penny they've given to charity in years), and there will be so many of them, that there's no chance for any negative attitude towards the pets to prevail for particularly long. I mean, half your guildies (in most guilds) are going to end up buying that thing, so if you're expounding the evils of doing so, expect to get some put-out stares and pouting.

So, really, too late for any real objections.

As Seroster says, though, this isn't exactly a "micro" transaction. It's $10 cold bloody dollars for a bloody pet in a computer game. Like, if they were sending me an action figure of it as well or something, then maybe they could justify $10, but for a single imaginary pet? What? The margins are almost unimaginably vast. It makes the microtransaction schemes run by other companies (like Cryptic's MT for CO) seem utterly unambitious by comparison. Any other game, they'd be charging $3 for these, or less.

Also, it's going to be absolutely hilariously maddening to the sane/sensible when we find out various twats have bought these pets, yet refuse to pay for authenticators.

That said, I'll save my real outrage for when they offer something actually functional for real-world money. As yet, they've steered well clear of that, except with the dubious RAF scheme (which is at least convoluted and fancy, thus stopping it becoming "the norm"). My main concern is that they'll start selling Heirloom-type items for RL money - different and likely better ones than the extant ones, no doubt with the excuse that they're not endgame items so don't offer a real advantage. The day that sort of idiocy occurs is the day my final cancellation occurs, but WoW will be long on the slide before they take a risk like that.

JustJo - Come off it, let's not be politically correct for the sake of ActiBlizzard, a company run by the most contemptible money-grubbers in the mainstream computer game industry (to be fair). They don't call them that just like British National Party don't call themselves Nazis (or even facists). It'd be bad PR to call them that. Plus, it'd be hilariously off, because as noted, there ain't nothin' micro about them.

[djtacoman]

I'm happy to have supported a charity I approve of, but that's not the reason I bought the pets. I bought the pets because I wanted them, and I have enough disposable income to pay for cute electronic imaginary world pets.

I'm actually seeing this as more a way to cut out the CCG middle-man here, as they're functionally not different from the rare codes you'd get in the WOW CCG for vanity mounts, pets, lawn furniture, and so on.

I understand what you're saying. Blizzard didn't sell the codes from the CCG to the player. It's a bonus to those who play both TCG and WoW. Because not all TCG players want/can use all the loot cards, they can transfer them to other people. I'm ok with that.

It's the microtransaction part of it that I don't like. I could afford these, but I don't want to obtain them that way. Heck, I could afford to buy a second account with a few 80s on it and then buy a botting program to run them around and gather mats for my main. Doesn't mean I'm going to. I would rather make the things I show off in-game be from my efforts in-game.
Granted, that's also how I see all vanity items. I don't see them purely as vanity, but as a showoff item.

[Old Geezer]

That's what "vanity" means. Showing off.

I think it's bloody genius on Blizz' part. I'm not going to drop ten bucks on one, but I still think it's bloody genius.

And the fact that we're going to be up to our asses in these things shortly means that Blizz was right.

[JustJo]

Plus, it'd be hilariously off, because as noted, there ain't nothin' micro about them.

Yah, that was my point actually.

[Rupert]

Well that is vanity - showing off. It's just that you're vain about your in-game accomplishments, and want to show them off, rather than about how much money you're willing to blow on a computer game.

It's all a reflection of the old 'conspicuous consumption' - purchased outright, via CCG cards, or via in-game time, all 'vanity' items are forms of this.

And less you think I'm being holier-than-thou, I've spent many hours farming for mounts, doing dailies for mounts and Champion's Seals with which to buy mounts, tabards, and (ultimately) pets.

EDIT: And Old Geezer - you're dead right. I'm not intending to buy them myself, but if I find myself a pet or two short of 75 in a bit, I may well succumb.

[Fenris]

I...ngh. I can SO see my DK with a lil' KT following him around. Whom he occasionally would insult, curse, punt, or even step on and pancake, only to have the little KT stick his bony thumb in his mouth to re-inflate himself.

...yeah, it's a bit tempting. :D I won't try to even pretend I'm doing something useful with the money, though.

[Will Wise]

I can think of better things to spend ten bucks on. I can think of worse things to spend ten bucks on.

Not my thing, but whatever. Don't see anything worth calling someone a twat over, certainly.

[Old Geezer]

Actually, as I've said before I'm surprised Blizz isn't selling other stuff. I'm surprised they're not selling levels, and I'm surprised they're not selling gear, and I'm surprised they're not selling mounts.

You KNOW people would buy that.

[Eurhetemec]

Don't see anything worth calling someone a twat over, certainly.

Read again. I would most strenuously assert, that, as I said, anyone who buys one of these, but has not bought an authenticator is indeed a twat.

[djtacoman]

I'm not going to look down my nose at anyone who buys one of these. I'm not going to buy one myself though. $10 for an in-game pet is too much if you ask me, and I don't like the microtransaction aspect. If it were $1 or $3, I'd find it harder to refuse, but I still would.

Somebody on WoW.com posted this, and I thought it was funny:

I imagine lots of conversations like this one:

"So I finally decided to quit World of Warcraft"

"Oh my god! This is great news! I always felt your addiction to that game was unhealthy."

"You think?"

"Why'd you quit? Want to spend more time with your family? Finally finish college? Rekindle your struggling relationship? Focus on your career?"

"...not exactly."

"Are you finally going to make something of yourself? Are you going to finish that Novel? Refurbish that boat with your dad?"

"Microtransactions."

"What?"

"You can buy in-game pets for REAL MONEY."

"You're serious."

"WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE?"

[Will Wise]

Read again. I would most strenuously assert, that, as I said, anyone who buys one of these, but has not bought an authenticator is indeed a twat.

There are times I think you take this shit way too seriously, dude.

[BethDragon]

I hope that the core hound puppy and the wind rider cub aren't going to be real-money ones. :(

Beth

[Harwel]

As Seroster says, though, this isn't exactly a "micro" transaction. It's $10 cold bloody dollars for a bloody pet in a computer game. Like, if they were sending me an action figure of it as well or something, then maybe they could justify $10, but for a single imaginary pet? What?

http://cgi.ebay.com/WOW-WARCRAFT-TCG-SPECTRAL-TIGER-MOUNT-LOOT-CARD-US-EU_W0QQitemZ320440996130QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_ 0?hash=item4a9bc59122

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1311&_nkw=wow+tcg+loot+card&_sacat=See-All-Categories

Anyway, I agree it's a ripoff, just not as much as some others out there for WoW in-game vanity items.

[Eurhetemec]

Actually, as I've said before I'm surprised Blizz isn't selling other stuff. I'm surprised they're not selling levels, and I'm surprised they're not selling gear, and I'm surprised they're not selling mounts.

You KNOW people would buy that.

The problem with that approach is that you basically "ruin" the game for a lot of people by doing that, because it changes the nature of the game on a very basic level.

When you can't "pay your way to success", then success is the result of some degree of effort/dedication/focus or whatever. There's something behind it that's not just a rich daddy or your welfare checks or whatever.

That means that there's some pride and prestige in your character. Because of the way EQ-derived MMOs are designed, it also means you put time and effort into the character.

So if someone comes along, and gives Blizzard $200 to be level 80 and have gear just as good as you (or whatever), then all your efforts are essentially shown to be worthless time-wasting - maybe you had fun and stuff, maybe you didn't, either way, you spent god-knows-how-long levelling up and doing instances, and he just spend $200 of his dad's cash (let's face facts, there'd be a lot of that).

Worse, it brings class/wealth divides (which America has, whether it pretends it or not) into the game, and shoves them into your face. Right now, a blue-collar worker with a few hours a day to play after work, and a high-end exec with the same time to play (we have both in my guild) are essentially on an equal footing (assuming no rules-breaking). That gives a kind of solidarity and an egalitarian feel, and keeps the game feeling like an escape from reality, not just a reflection of it. The blue-collar worker may well simply not have the $200 to buy levels and gear, the exec certainly does, so the poorer player feels like he's having to make efforts someone else doesn't, purely because that person is more wealthy. That's not fun. It really isn't. It's like the opposite of fun.

On top of all that, if a game even partially monetizes actual game stuff (as opposed to vanity stuff), they can (and historically, tend to) put themselves into a sort of spiral of ever-increasing focus on maximizing people's use of the monetized elements.

For a good example, look at WoW's changes to levelling speeds. WoW has increased them several times, and may well do so again in Cataclysm. Why? Because they want people to see all their content, and have a good time, and not get bored. When money is involved, it gets more complicated, because they have a serious reason to keep levelling slow - not just to assure a monthly subscription, but to encourage players to buy levelling services. Even if a company resists the urge, or does things for other reasons, people are going to see the hand of greed it in, and frankly, they're usually going to be right.

Similarly with gear - if they sold it, whenever it was hard to get a piece of gear that could be bought, the perception would be that the difficulty in getting it was partly or entirely due to the desire to "milk it for all it's worth".

In short, when you monetize gameplay, you make the game about money, and that's not necessarily a good idea for escapist games, or for competative games (in most cases), and WoW is both, even in PvE (raiding is pretty competative, much as we might not want it to be, and/or individually not be).

Edit - You sacrifice the potential for people to blow a vast amount of money on junk for a steady income and reputation as a "fair" game, as well as having people feeling like they can escape from the realities of poverty or whatever in your game.

So anyway, I think you see why sticking to vanity and pissing-around stuff is a much safer option. That way, people like me may roll our eyes at the prices and so on, but we'll never actually have our play-experience hurt buy it. We may even slip and buy a piece or two, when it's sufficiently attractive (and if it didn't cost ten bloody dollars! good lord! I'd consider paying two).

[Gaffa]

http://cgi.ebay.com/WOW-WARCRAFT-TCG-SPECTRAL-TIGER-MOUNT-LOOT-CARD-US-EU_W0QQitemZ320440996130QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_ 0?hash=item4a9bc59122
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1311&_nkw=wow+tcg+loot+card&_sacat=See-All-Categories

Yup, exactly what I was thinking of, when I said this looks like Blizzard is more aiming for this slice of the pie than anything else.

I have a lot of disposable income, but $900, for instance, for a transparent mount for me to ride isn't a good deal for me. $20 for two cute pets is right up my ally and my interest corridor, however. If they had a "pet of the month club," I might even sign up for that ($100 for 12 random pets, one a month, for a year), but it'd depend on what pets they offered (I have no real interest in the baby core hound, for instance).

[Eurhetemec]

There are times I think you take this shit way too seriously, dude.

Oh the irony! You're taking my posts too seriously, you nutbar! Do I really have to put smilies on the end of everything to prevent people like you taking it deadly seriously?*. It thought my ridiculous word-choice ("strenuously assert", really, do you REALLY think I talk like that?) made it clear. If you think twat is such a terrible term (remember I am English, my word-meanings may differ from yours), you need to bloody get out more, mate. Twonk, twat, prat, prick, divot. All these words describe the sort of person who buys a electronic vanity item over something that stops his account being hacked ;)

* - JustJo - Ok, yeah in reference to the DA thread, ON THE INTERNET people fail to get jokes, sarcasm or to understand the real meaning of things I'm saying all the time!

[Will Wise]

Oh the irony! You're taking my posts to seriously, you nutbar. Do I really have to put smilies on the end of everything to prevent people like you taking it deadly seriously?*. If you think twat is such a terrible term (remember I am English, my word-meanings may differ from yours), you need to bloody get out more, mate. Twonk, twat, prat, prick. All these words describe the sort of person who buys a electronic vanity item over something that stops his account being hacked ;)

* - JustJo - Ok, yeah in reference to the DA thread, ON THE INTERNET people fail to get jokes, sarcasm or to understand the real meaning of things I'm saying all the time!

... that's a clue, man

[Harwel]

I personally like how they're dipping into the microtransaction model while still charging a monthly sub and retail sales. Way to milk that cow!

http://animal.kukuchew.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cow-milking.jpg

[Eurhetemec]

... that's a clue, man

So I should put smilies on the end of every sentence that isn't intended in deadly earnest? Where's my damn /rolleyes smiley when I need it.

Oh bonus prize goes to Blue Poster Zahrym who manages to use weasel words to make it sound like most future pets will be from the "pet store":

"Is this going to be the end of new in-game pets? Will new pets only be available through purchase with the "pet store"? Is this why the macabre marionette wasn't a "real" pet?"

Zahrym: No, this does not mean that all future non-combat pets will be available strictly through the Pet Store.

Now I need the /facepalm smiley. Good job pouring fuel on the fire there (with the "available strictly" deal).

[IceShadow]

There's no way I can justify these. Not with a baby on the way and stuff. And honestly I doubt I'd ever have them out even if I had them. But man are they pinging on my "frivolous stuff I want" radar. x.x

[JustJo]

I personally like how they're dipping into the microtransaction model while still charging a monthly sub and retail sales. Way to milk that cow!



It's kind of becoming more common. CO does the same thing, Free Realms is moving to subs but keeping the shop, etc etc

[Doc Ezra]

Cheaper than eBay, collecting TCG cards in hopes of finding them, the Arena Tournament, or BlizzCon streaming, all of which were the previous methods for purchasing pets with real cash.

So yeah, kung fu panda coming soon to a gnome near you.

[AliasiSudonomo]

Eh, it's too much, but it's not something I'm going to bitch over; hell, I don't even agree with the 'milking the cow' complaint... when it's done in the manner a game like City of Heroes does, where the costume packs are largely funded by the extra money the costume packs bring in, and even the included power is largely cosmetic. sure, you can escape a debt-ridden death by self-destructing just before you die (the Cyborg pack power) but debt in CoX is already a trivial thing to get rid of unless you intentionally max out the meter... and then it's merely simple!

Contrast with the authenticator, which is neat and all but seriously, if a Chinese gold farmer/rip off artist can get onto your account, you ALREADY did something wrong, you know? it's more a lesson to not use easy to guess passwords (and/or ignore the security question in favor of making a random or master password or something, i suppose, when appropriate.)

[Kurotowa]

They are indeed super nifty. But that $10 price tag is just a wee too high. Now, if they ever do a half price sale, I'll be all over it. And if the Core Hound Pup goes up I'll be a lot more tempted. Right now, though, I can remain strong.

[IceShadow]

Contrast with the authenticator, which is neat and all but seriously, if a Chinese gold farmer/rip off artist can get onto your account, you ALREADY did something wrong, you know? it's more a lesson to not use easy to guess passwords (and/or ignore the security question in favor of making a random or master password or something, i suppose, when appropriate.)

I'm a disagree with you here. Keyloggers are distressingly common.

[Eurhetemec]

Contrast with the authenticator, which is neat and all but seriously, if a Chinese gold farmer/rip off artist can get onto your account, you ALREADY did something wrong, you know? it's more a lesson to not use easy to guess passwords (and/or ignore the security question in favor of making a random or master password or something, i suppose, when appropriate.)

Wow, could you know any less about account theft? Your statement is pure ignorance, and insult to people who get hacked (who are mostly clueless, but not for the reasons described).

1) Account thieves do not "guess passwords". They are working on an industrial scale, and that would be a complete waste of time. They get people to install keyloggers on their systems, either by tricking them into downloading them directly, or buy purchasing access to machines which other criminals have already gotten trojans onto. Super-secure random password or "lolsexlol", you'll get hacked just as easily.

2) Account thieves do not mess around with your "security question". Having a tough or easy security question or whatever will make ZERO DIFFERENCE to what happens when you get "hacked", because the "hackers" don't care.

All they care about is how much in-game gold they can get out of you. Thus they sell off every bound item you have that's worth anything at all, and they go through your bank and any guild-bank areas you can access, and take everything they can, then either put it on the AH at rock-bottom "priced to sell" prices, or mail it to another account to do the saem.

3) You smugly assert that "people have already done something wrong". No, you are wrong. It was once true, but no longer is. Here's an example - a trojan was successfully placed on a completely normal-seeming banner on the NYT, one of the most respected newspapers in the world:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article6841779.ece

No amount of "password security" where full passwords are being entered on a regular basis is going to protect one from trojans like that, and that's just a drop in the ocean. There was even a bloody trojan on one of the banners on the WoW forums recently.

Getting trojans on people's computer is big business, and if you think you have to "do something wrong" for it to happen, you're fooling yourself. It's an archaic and ignorant attitude.

If you play WoW, then, well, your ignorance is even worse, because you're exposing your account to risk through your ignorance.

[Harwel]

I'm a disagree with you here. Keyloggers are distressingly common.

Agreed. There are numerous bits of malware floating around that are expressly targeting WoW accounts. I remember one pretty recently that would install itself silently from a flash ad on a very popular MMO fansite (curse.com). It infected tons of machines before the antivirus companies were able to add it to their databases. So unless you lock down your browser pretty tightly (and even if you do), you're at risk, no matter how strong your passwords are.

I use a strong password, and I run script and adblocking software in my browser, but I still bought an authenticator. This kind of token system is good protection, and it's not for no reason two of the last 3 IT shops I've worked in have used similar systems for remote access. I've never been keylogged but that doesn't mean it can't happen, and recovering from getting hacked is way too much of a pain in the ass to NOT spend $6 on a little peace of mind.

The world of malware has changed. It's no longer nerds sitting in their mom's basement doing it for laughs, or because they can, or because they get a thrill from vandalizing systems. These days it's organized crime, and it's big money.

Damn, did this thread get off-topic.

[IceShadow]

Kinda went full circle with "big money," I think. ;)

[Rupert]

Contrast with the authenticator, which is neat and all but seriously, if a Chinese gold farmer/rip off artist can get onto your account, you ALREADY did something wrong, you know? it's more a lesson to not use easy to guess passwords (and/or ignore the security question in favor of making a random or master password or something, i suppose, when appropriate.)

I presume you never browse the internet, ever. It's the only way to be sure (and even then it's not certain).

[Shadow Rat]

Are the pets bind on account?

Edit - and then I bothered to read the link and they are account wide... that's not to bad I guess.

[Gaffa]

Are the pets bind on account?

The pets are available to all your characters on your account. They all get the same pet in the mail, so all your alts get a pandaran or L'il KZ.

[Rupert]

All they care about is how much in-game gold they can get out of you. Thus they sell off every bound item you have that's worth anything at all, and they go through your bank and any guild-bank areas you can access, and take everything they can, then either put it on the AH at rock-bottom "priced to sell" prices, or mail it to another account to do the saem.

An example - my flatmate had his account hacked. As far as we can tell it was by the use of a keylogger inserted using a trojan not normally used for this (until now). This trojan was inserted in the period from when its latest version went into use and my flatmate's security program's had their databases updated. We never did track down exactly where it infected his machine from.

Once hacked, they used his character to grab stuff from the guild bank, up to the maximum number of withdrawals the guild allows. This stuff was then sold, along with everything his characters owned that was vendorable, and his 80, a miner, was then set to work in Wintergrasp and Sholazar Basin mining using an underground speed hack. Another character was created on the account as a mule to store the ore until it could be off-loaded. We know this, because when he got his account back this character was there, with a bank filled with saronite and titanium (and 4K gold in cash, which Blizzard later removed).

So, from direct observation, this is a commercial operation here, not some kiddie hacking accounts and embarrassing their owners for kicks.

[Old Geezer]

Read again. I would most strenuously assert, that, as I said, anyone who buys one of these, but has not bought an authenticator is indeed a twat.

Please don't use a slang term for part of the female anatomy as an epithet. Thank you.

[Old Geezer]

The problem with that approach is that you basically "ruin" the game for a lot of people by doing that, because it changes the nature of the game on a very basic level.

When you can't "pay your way to success", then success is the result of some degree of effort/dedication/focus or whatever. There's something behind it that's not just a rich daddy or your welfare checks or whatever.

That means that there's some pride and prestige in your character. Because of the way EQ-derived MMOs are designed, it also means you put time and effort into the character.

So if someone comes along, and gives Blizzard $200 to be level 80 and have gear just as good as you (or whatever), then all your efforts are essentially shown to be worthless time-wasting - maybe you had fun and stuff, maybe you didn't, either way, you spent god-knows-how-long levelling up and doing instances, and he just spend $200 of his dad's cash (let's face facts, there'd be a lot of that).

Worse, it brings class/wealth divides (which America has, whether it pretends it or not) into the game, and shoves them into your face. Right now, a blue-collar worker with a few hours a day to play after work, and a high-end exec with the same time to play (we have both in my guild) are essentially on an equal footing (assuming no rules-breaking). That gives a kind of solidarity and an egalitarian feel, and keeps the game feeling like an escape from reality, not just a reflection of it. The blue-collar worker may well simply not have the $200 to buy levels and gear, the exec certainly does, so the poorer player feels like he's having to make efforts someone else doesn't, purely because that person is more wealthy. That's not fun. It really isn't. It's like the opposite of fun.

On top of all that, if a game even partially monetizes actual game stuff (as opposed to vanity stuff), they can (and historically, tend to) put themselves into a sort of spiral of ever-increasing focus on maximizing people's use of the monetized elements.

For a good example, look at WoW's changes to levelling speeds. WoW has increased them several times, and may well do so again in Cataclysm. Why? Because they want people to see all their content, and have a good time, and not get bored. When money is involved, it gets more complicated, because they have a serious reason to keep levelling slow - not just to assure a monthly subscription, but to encourage players to buy levelling services. Even if a company resists the urge, or does things for other reasons, people are going to see the hand of greed it in, and frankly, they're usually going to be right.

Similarly with gear - if they sold it, whenever it was hard to get a piece of gear that could be bought, the perception would be that the difficulty in getting it was partly or entirely due to the desire to "milk it for all it's worth".

In short, when you monetize gameplay, you make the game about money, and that's not necessarily a good idea for escapist games, or for competative games (in most cases), and WoW is both, even in PvE (raiding is pretty competative, much as we might not want it to be, and/or individually not be).

Edit - You sacrifice the potential for people to blow a vast amount of money on junk for a steady income and reputation as a "fair" game, as well as having people feeling like they can escape from the realities of poverty or whatever in your game.

So anyway, I think you see why sticking to vanity and pissing-around stuff is a much safer option. That way, people like me may roll our eyes at the prices and so on, but we'll never actually have our play-experience hurt buy it. We may even slip and buy a piece or two, when it's sufficiently attractive (and if it didn't cost ten bloody dollars! good lord! I'd consider paying two).

What someone else has in the game makes absolutely, positively no difference to my play experience, except if I group with them.

Somebody buys a level 64 paladin and all of a sudden the two years it took me to get my paladin to 64 are "worthless time-wasting"?

What the fuck?

Did I have fun doing it? If so, then the fact that somebody bought a level 64 paladin is irrelevant. If I didn't have fun, why the fuck did I spend two years at $15 a month to do it?

I'm serious. This makes absolutely, completely, totally no fucking sense at all to me.

[Old Geezer]

There's no way I can justify these. Not with a baby on the way and stuff. And honestly I doubt I'd ever have them out even if I had them. But man are they pinging on my "frivolous stuff I want" radar. x.x

I will point out that $15 a month for WoW is also "frivolous stuff I want".

[Dorchadas]

An excellent yen to dollar exchange rate, cheaper than eBay, and I can't spend the money on Dragon Age because FUCK YOU STEAM?

I think my wife and I will both be getting these. :)

[IceShadow]

I will point out that $15 a month for WoW is also "frivolous stuff I want".

Depends on your definition of frivolous, I guess. I mean in the "Something that does nothing but sit in a closet" manner, not the "I pay pennies on the hour for my entertainment" manner. ;)

WoW is certainly not a necessity, but I'd hardly count that $15/mo. frivolously spent. :)

[AliasiSudonomo]

I presume you never browse the internet, ever. It's the only way to be sure (and even then it's not certain).

No, but I do play several MMOs, run NoScript and Flashblock, use reasonable anti-malware and anti-virus precautions and software... and yet, somehow, I am not account-hacked and virused at every turn despite my decision to not purchase a dongle! :eek:

Seriously, I do get that the SIZE of WoW and of the goldfarming/goldbuying market makes these things a tenable operation, since you can do things like specifically target WoW and expect to hit paydirt.

On the other hand, one of my usual hangouts is Second Life. Now, it's a hell of a lot smaller than WoW but economically, everything done in-world can mean real money; not being a game one may create and purchase objects of value and pay one's real-world rent quite legally that way, so the legitimate economy is quite large for the number of users.

There's been worries about certain custom clients (the SL client is open-sourced) containing keyloggers - a totally legitimate worry - I'll be damned if things have been one half so paranoid as people worried about someone cleaning out their character on WoW. I don't see this worry in City of Heroes, but then again, money is all but worthless there unless you're a PvP sort who needs to get purpled out.

I'm certainly behind the argument that the user name/password method of authentication is outdated (because it is), but the specific need for an 'authenicator' for a specific game seems more an artifact of WoW's design and place as the golf of the 21st century than anything inherent to using the Internet as a whole. I won't argue that people who use it are 'wrong', just... really, a lot of these stories sound like Wakshaani's constant virus troubles.

[IceShadow]

I won't argue that people who use it are 'wrong', just... really, a lot of these stories sound like Wakshaani's constant virus troubles.

They're not, and it's insulting to insinuate that it is. I keep all of my virus active, up to date, I run Firefox with Adblock, and my password is a combination of letters (both upper and lowercase), numbers, and punctuation, and doesn't contain any words in any language I know of, forward, backward, or scrambled. And I got key logged.

[mhacdebhandia]

Worse, it brings class/wealth divides (which America has, whether it pretends it or not) into the game, and shoves them into your face. Right now, a blue-collar worker with a few hours a day to play after work, and a high-end exec with the same time to play (we have both in my guild) are essentially on an equal footing (assuming no rules-breaking). That gives a kind of solidarity and an egalitarian feel, and keeps the game feeling like an escape from reality, not just a reflection of it. The blue-collar worker may well simply not have the $200 to buy levels and gear, the exec certainly does, so the poorer player feels like he's having to make efforts someone else doesn't, purely because that person is more wealthy.
I like the part where this is in response to Old "Wobbly Since The Dinosaurs Walked The Earth" Geezer.

[Old Geezer]

I like the part where this is in response to Old "Wobbly Since The Dinosaurs Walked The Earth" Geezer.

:D

Me, I'm still puzzling over the "when did time spent playing the game stop being fun?"

[Old Geezer]

Depends on your definition of frivolous, I guess. I mean in the "Something that does nothing but sit in a closet" manner, not the "I pay pennies on the hour for my entertainment" manner. ;)

WoW is certainly not a necessity, but I'd hardly count that $15/mo. frivolously spent. :)

Of course it's frivolous. It's playing a game where you type on a keyboard manipulating a pretend elf.

However, it's also fun.

Model railroading is also frivolous. I also have 20 Tupperware containers full of stuff.

[Mengtzu]

:D

Me, I'm still puzzling over the "when did time spent playing the game stop being fun?"

I think they're talking about the hypothetical endgame player who wants to try a new character in heroics/raids/etc but doesn't really feel like playing through the old world again (my next alt will be my...8th or 9th through Azeroth >_<).

[Qetu]

I keep all of my virus active, up to date
:D:D:D

[IceShadow]

Of course it's frivolous. It's playing a game where you type on a keyboard manipulating a pretend elf.

However, it's also fun.

Model railroading is also frivolous. I also have 20 Tupperware containers full of stuff.

Like I said, it depends on your definition of frivolous. Something that sees as much use as that $15/mo doesn't really count to me. =)

[davidb]

Real $ for in game vanity items, in a straight-up transaction, really sits badly with me.

Yes i can ignore it, and it shouldn't affect me.

Yes, you could get vanity items through other merchandise (e.g. the card game)... but at least in that case there was a real world product, with a fringe/side benefit being provided for cross-marketing purposes.

What's next? real $ for mounts? You already have the 'skill', so a mount is just a vanity item.

All the previous sacred cows have dropped this year... race change, faction change, pve to pvp servers.

I'm beginning to suspect that the 'peak' of WoW is almost over, Blizz realises this and are milking the cash cow as much as possible before the inevitable, slow decline begins. Keep in mind that WoW in China is effectively over at this point, and that was a significant part of their user population.

[chiguayante]

Like I said, it depends on your definition of frivolous. Something that sees as much use as that $15/mo doesn't really count to me. =)

Whereas $10 is a meal at McDonald's. It really isn't very much money, when it comes down to it and it isn't necessary to enjoy or compete in the game. $10 is a fine price for the minipet, even if I won't be buying it.

[PyroGod]

Whereas $10 is a meal at McDonald's. It really isn't very much money, when it comes down to it and it isn't necessary to enjoy or compete in the game. $10 is a fine price for the minipet, even if I won't be buying it.

It's very expensive for what it is.

a. Typical DLC including an equivalent amount of content is usually 1/2-1/10th the price, and is already priced at a premium.

b. You can buy an entire indie game for the price of the two pets, like Killing Floor, which has had a few free major content updates, and has been on sale for even less than its normal $20 price tag. Or heck, an AAA game on a Steam sale.

c. The marginal cost to provide the product is like $0.10. You're paying them 100x what it costs them to sell it to you for, which is pretty ridiculous, especially for something which didn't have especially high development costs.

Edit: d. Everyone already has paid Blizzard as much as $1000 to play the game. Charging such high prices for small amounts of bonus content is rather unseemly considering the sheer amount of cash dedicated players have poured into their pockets. This also goes with points a and b where other developers, like Valve with TF2, will provide huge amounts of new content for a lifetime investment of like $20.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm actually really in favor of DLC for games assuming it is fairly priced and well integrated, though noting my very strong encouragement to have a mix of free and premium content. But Activision Blizzard is, between this and their MW2 crap, is pretty much trying (and has succeeded) in becoming the most shamelessly greedy publisher in the world.

[Old Geezer]

It's very expensive for what it is.

a. Typical DLC including an equivalent amount of content is usually 1/2-1/10th the price, and is already priced at a premium.

b. You can buy an entire indie game for the price of the two pets, like Killing Floor, which has had a few free major content updates, and has been on sale for even less than its normal $20 price tag. Or heck, an AAA game on a Steam sale.

c. The marginal cost to provide the product is like $0.10. You're paying them 100x what it costs them to sell it to you for, which is pretty ridiculous, especially for something which didn't have especially high development costs.

Edit: d. Everyone already has paid Blizzard as much as $1000 to play the game. Charging such high prices for small amounts of bonus content is rather unseemly considering the sheer amount of cash dedicated players have poured into their pockets. This also goes with points a and b where other developers, like Valve with TF2, will provide huge amounts of new content for a lifetime investment of like $20.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm actually really in favor of DLC for games assuming it is fairly priced and well integrated, though noting my very strong encouragement to have a mix of free and premium content. But Activision Blizzard is, between this and their MW2 crap, is pretty much trying (and has succeeded) in becoming the most shamelessly greedy publisher in the world.

And they are forcing nobody to buy it.

It is a luxury good. There is no such thing as "overpriced" on a luxury good. They picked $10 as a low enough buy in that people with any inclination at all will drop a tenner without thinking. In a day when a pint of Guinness costs $6, ten bucks ain't what it used to be.

Buying it is entirely optional. If people buy it, then obviously Blizzard ISN'T charging too much for it.

[PyroGod]

And they are forcing nobody to buy it.

It is a luxury good. There is no such thing as "overpriced" on a luxury good. They picked $10 as a low enough buy in that people with any inclination at all will drop a tenner without thinking.

Buying it is entirely optional. If people buy it, then obviously Blizzard ISN'T charging too much for it.

I'd think as a (way too far for my taste) leftist you'd be at least slightly unthrilled (Granted, this isn't a "big deal") about something that represents a growing trend in anti-consumer tendencies.

I'm not sure if you know / care, but you realize Kotick (the CEO of Activision Blizzard) embodies everything that is wrong with capitalism (short of killing unionists or exposing children to carcinogens, anyways), right? He sees customers as walking wallets and employees as pieces of capital to be moved around like machines to maximize profit, and the worst part about it is he doesn't even have the shame or fear of consequences to conceal this. You can find publicly available interviews where he says as much.

Sure, the pets are cute and are a luxury within a luxury, but they are part of a larger plan to attempt to extract the very most money for the very least service rendered, which will be continued until it reaches the breaking point (and probably beyond, because next quarter is king).

In a day when a pint of Guinness costs $6, ten bucks ain't what it used to be.

I can get drunk for $10, just not in a bar.

[Old Geezer]

I'd think as a (way too far for my taste) leftist you'd be at least slightly unthrilled (Granted, this isn't a "big deal") about something that represents a growing trend in anti-consumer tendencies.

I'm not sure if you know / care, but you realize Kotick (the CEO of Activision Blizzard) embodies everything that is wrong with capitalism (short of killing unionists or exposing children to carcinogens, anyways), right? He sees customers as walking wallets and employees as pieces of capital to be moved around like machines to maximize profit, and the worst part about it is he doesn't even have the shame or fear of consequences to conceal this. You can find publicly available interviews where he says as much.

Sure, the pets are cute and are a luxury within a luxury, but they are part of a larger plan to attempt to extract the very most money for the very least service rendered, which will be continued until it reaches the breaking point (and probably beyond, because next quarter is king).


And what you describe above is different from any other seller of luxury goods in what way?

Besides being a Socialist (neener neener), I also have an MBA. U of MN, 1987, Carlson School of Management.

This is how you sell luxury goods. You keep raising the prices until total revenue starts to decline.

Of COURSE he looks at people as walking wallets! He's selling an utterly fucking useless game where you sit on your ass in front of a computer screen and watch a cartoon elf!

It's a luxury good. This is how luxury goods are sold. Do you REALLY think a Coach bag is 100 times as good as one you buy at Target?

I don't care because NOBODY NEEDS THIS. It's not like food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or a thousand other things that actually matter.

As Gary Gygax said oh so many years ago, "It's just a stupid game."

[IceShadow]

Out of curiosity, do you complain when people sell stuff for "too much" on the Auction Hall too, PyroGod? :)

[Old Geezer]

I can get drunk for $10, just not in a bar.

I don't get drunk any more, I'm too old. The last time I had a couple drinks too many (which was 5 total in an evening) it took me two days to recover.

Though the day red wine gave me a headache WITHOUT any intoxication was no treat either.

Middle age ain't for sissies, kid.

[Rupert]

And this is why I also don't care, despite being another one of these disgusting socialists.

[J. H. Frank]

How is this any worse than "pay us money to sign up for the tournament realms, get a free pet" and "sign up for the Blizzcon stream get a free pet"? I know more than a few people who treated both of those as a a really big microtransaction. Hell, I have a $40 space marine murloc pet and I didn't watch the stream at all.

[davidb]

How is this any worse than "pay us money to sign up for the tournament realms, get a free pet" and "sign up for the Blizzcon stream get a free pet"? I know more than a few people who treated both of those as a a really big microtransaction. Hell, I have a $40 space marine murloc pet and I didn't watch the stream at all.

Probably not much worse, although i sense a small distinction.

In the case of the live stream, there's at least extra effort on blizzard's part to create and stream the feed... its crossed selling, shared marketing , etc.

In the case of "$ for virtual pet", in some cases its a 5 min exercise; they take the existing KT or Molten Core game models and shrink them to 10% -- done. Its pretty shameless.

Its not exactly necessary for the game, *except* WoW now has achievements which is its own mini-game in itself... conveniently these new pets will help some people finally reach one of the harder solo achievements in the game.

I think why people are a bit out-of-joint on this one, is because its testing the limits of game integrity. "We'll offer you this, but charge you for it. Ok, now how about this? Does THIS bother you? Hm, what about THIS?" I can't say where the collective jump-off point is from 'love this game, blizzard is giving us options!' and 'WTF?', but this definitely is 1 step closer to the later.

[IceShadow]

In the case of "$ for virtual pet", in some cases its a 5 min exercise; they take the existing KT or Molten Core game models and shrink them to 10% -- done. Its pretty shameless.

You haven't really looked at them at all, have you? I mean, it probably wasn't a month's work for someone, but a couple days' effort at least.

[JustJo]

Please don't use a slang term for part of the female anatomy as an epithet. Thank you.

Would it be better if he called him a dick instead? (No offence, OG, but the term he used really is considered very mild and slightly amusing here.)

[Old Geezer]

Would it be better if he called him a dick instead? (No offence, OG, but the term he used really is considered very mild and slightly amusing here.)

I know that.

Over on this side of the Pond, it is considered quite offensive, especially to women. Explicitly so, in fact, by several women on this very forum.

Which is why I asked him to refrain from using it. Quite politely, I might add.

And yes, he could call him a dick, a pecker, a boner, a cock, or a peener-head and it wouldn't bother me, or most American men, in the slightest. But men are in the position of privilege and have less to lose by having their genitals made into a word with negative connotation. And I will also point out that I've heard a lot of men use synonyms for penis as an epithet, but I've heard very few American women use synonyms for vagina as an epithet. Which probably proves something, but bugger if I know what.

[davidb]

You haven't really looked at them at all, have you? I mean, it probably wasn't a month's work for someone, but a couple days' effort at least.

I saw them briefly at MMO champion a few weeks ago, the molten corehound and KT looked merely like downsized models back then. The pandaren one would have been net-new of course, and yes worth a couple of days of effort potentially for an animator which is why i didn't mention it.

Checking the store right now it looks like they customized the KT pet a bit...the body is essentially the same though.

I note now that the sales of the pandaren pet at 50% going to charity.

[Mengtzu]

Its not exactly necessary for the game, *except* WoW now has achievements which is its own mini-game in itself... conveniently these new pets will help some people finally reach one of the harder solo achievements in the game.


Isn't the highest pet achievement at 75? Serious pet collectors are on 110+

Which brings up another point, there is a class of player that devotes enormous amounts of time to the game in pursuit of cosmetic goodies. This class probably has disposable income going begging because they spend so much of their spare time on a $15/month hobby. It's likely a high proportion of them are very happy to spend this kind of money because they get high utility out of cosmetics. Hence Blizzard would be crazy not to take their cash :)

[chiguayante]

Which brings up another point, there is a class of player that devotes enormous amounts of time to the game in pursuit of cosmetic goodies. This class probably has disposable income going begging because they spend so much of their spare time on a $15/month hobby. It's likely a high proportion of them are very happy to spend this kind of money because they get high utility out of cosmetics. Hence Blizzard would be crazy not to take their cash :)

EXACTLY.

[Old Geezer]

You know, if Blizz bought the rights to Cartographer and Auctioneer and sold them for $10 each, I'd meekly ante up.

The thought of trying to use the auction house without Auctioneer gives me uncontrollable flatulence.

[hkgirl91]

You know, if Blizz bought the rights to Cartographer and Auctioneer and sold them for $10 each, I'd meekly ante up.

Shhhhhhhhhh! Don't give them any ideas. :eek:

The new pets are tempting....

[Ratman_tf]

I think why people are a bit out-of-joint on this one, is because its testing the limits of game integrity. "We'll offer you this, but charge you for it. Ok, now how about this? Does THIS bother you? Hm, what about THIS?" I can't say where the collective jump-off point is from 'love this game, blizzard is giving us options!' and 'WTF?', but this definitely is 1 step closer to the later.

I know where my line is drawn. The day a person can spend money to directly affect game mechanics (beyond the monthly sub to actually log in and play, duh) is the day I cancel my WoW account.

[J. H. Frank]

I'm pretty okay with people throwing money at heirloom items, actually.

[jimthegray]

...the new microtransaction-only Pandaren and L'il KT pets are mine, mine, MINE!!!

Darn, they're adorable!

im so getting the lich

[davidb]

I know where my line is drawn. The day a person can spend money to directly affect game mechanics (beyond the monthly sub to actually log in and play, duh) is the day I cancel my WoW account.

Most people take that position and its a reasonable one; its would be a pretty obvious mistake for Blizzard to make and I doubt they'd ever be so egregious (never say never though).

I think there's some shades of gray that might tweak people w/o having an immediate mechanic impact.

What if they offered something like this: If you have 3 level 80 characters, for a fee of $50 you can automatically have a 4th level 80 character of your choice? No mechanic changes/advantages, just another alt.

Or how about this: Triple spec for hybrid classes, for a nominal $ fee. You have in-game dual spec today, all the specs are viable and valid in the game today so there's no underlying mechanic differences.

Or how about this: For a nominal fee, you can now use your AQ40-only mounts outside the raid instance?

My only previous experience with 'paid content' impacting a game was Battlefield 2, where they started coming out with expansion packs...the packs weren't just maps and player skins, but also introduced new weapons, and new weapon unlocks. Most were average, but there were a few weapons that were vastly overpowered. All of the sudden vanilla Battlefield 2 players were outclassed by people who had purchased the expansion -- it got really ugly as some regions had the expansion pack(s) available before others. Alot of people left the game as a result.

WoW hasn't gone this far, and as i said I doubt they'd make such an obvious mistake.

[Ratman_tf]

Most people take that position and its a reasonable one; its would be a pretty obvious mistake for Blizzard to make and I doubt they'd ever be so egregious (never say never though).

I think there's some shades of gray that might tweak people w/o having an immediate mechanic impact.

What if they offered something like this: If you have 3 level 80 characters, for a fee of $50 you can automatically have a 4th level 80 character of your choice? No mechanic changes/advantages, just another alt.

Or how about this: Triple spec for hybrid classes, for a nominal $ fee. You have in-game dual spec today, all the specs are viable and valid in the game today so there's no underlying mechanic differences.

Or how about this: For a nominal fee, you can now use your AQ40-only mounts outside the raid instance?

My only previous experience with 'paid content' impacting a game was Battlefield 2, where they started coming out with expansion packs...the packs weren't just maps and player skins, but also introduced new weapons, and new weapon unlocks. Most were average, but there were a few weapons that were vastly overpowered. All of the sudden vanilla Battlefield 2 players were outclassed by people who had purchased the expansion -- it got really ugly as some regions had the expansion pack(s) available before others. Alot of people left the game as a result.

WoW hasn't gone this far, and as i said I doubt they'd make such an obvious mistake.

Like you say, those are all grey areas. And your example of Battlefield 2 is exactly what I'd fear.
Also, I'm slightly against paid expansions, like BC and Wrath, in that they segregate the player base. "Let's go do Temptest Keep!" "Oh, I can't, I don't have that expansion." But I can't see a way to actually expand games with that much content at once without charging for it.

I think money for 80's and/or triple specs would do it for me. (Hit my cancel button) That's access to game mechanics for a fee. Mounts and pets... eh.
I also am not bothered by fast leveling and mounts for the "friend account" deal they had going a while ago. Incentives for new and returning players that ease the leveling curve are fine, but just straight paying money to ding, gratz bugs me.

[Mr. Horrible]

Keep in mind that WoW in China is effectively over at this point, and that was a significant part of their user population.

There's a fascinating story there that is maybe worthy of its own thread, but this is not (yet) the death knell of WoW in China. It appears to be a turf war between different Chinese governmental bureaucracies over regulatory control of a lucrative industry.

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN0245010720091102
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/04/ap/tech/main5520325.shtml




On topic: Selling virtual goods on top of a subscription fee and purchased expansion packs has an awfully Naked Money Grubbing feel to it. That's fine, we're capitalists around here, but I won't be participating.

[IceShadow]

Blizzard already has a line drawn for what they consider to be "cosmetic," and you can see it very clearly in what's available from the Achievement system and the CCG loot cards: Tabards, Titles, Pets, Mounts. (And Achievement Points in general, I guess.) I'm fine with any of those being purchasable with real-world money unequivocally.

Other things...I'm uncertain about. Actual gear: heirlooms, sure, to help level up. But they should be replaceable by level 80 quest items available to all.

Anything BiS available only through purchase (even if it's by one point of whatever) is way too far. Anything that would get you ready to raid quicker is too far too; it would mean guilds would put pressure on people to spend real-world money to get ready to raid.

For leveling? Whatever, I don't care. Let new players spend $100 on the (new) collector's edition of the battlechest that comes with a max-level character of your choice of race/class, whatever. :)

[Eurhetemec]

No, but I do play several MMOs, run NoScript and Flashblock, use reasonable anti-malware and anti-virus precautions and software... and yet, somehow, I am not account-hacked and virused at every turn despite my decision to not purchase a dongle! :eek:

There is no decision if it is not an option. Is it an option for any of the games you play? No. I thought not. Caution does not solve the problem. Only your ignorance of the fact allows you believe that. I've never been hacked either, but I purchased an authenticator because I know people who have, even ones I know take precautions probably far better than yours.

I'm certainly behind the argument that the user name/password method of authentication is outdated (because it is), but the specific need for an 'authenicator' for a specific game seems more an artifact of WoW's design and place as the golf of the 21st century than anything inherent to using the Internet as a whole. I won't argue that people who use it are 'wrong', just... really, a lot of these stories sound like Wakshaani's constant virus troubles.

What stories? You think the NYT being tricked into putting trojans in it's ads is equivalent to some random guy getting viruses?. I'm not even sure how to deal with level of combined ignorance and smug superiority without being rude, so I'm not going to. It's the ignorance that's really galling. You literally have no idea what you're talking about, but you're acting like you're in the know and everyone else is inept. It seems like the opposite is true to me.

[IceShadow]

I'm not even sure how to deal with level of combined ignorance and smug superiority without being rude, so I'm not going to. It's the ignorance that's really galling. You literally have no idea what you're talking about, but you're acting like you're in the know and everyone else is inept. It seems like the opposite is true to me.

For once, you and I are on the same page. And worse, AliasiSudonomo's comments are actively harmful, because they might discourage someone from investing $6.50 to protect their account. It'd be like saying, "Sure, you can let some company out there level your character, there's no harm in that!" or, to use an extremely inapplicable due to the completely different consequences and yet analogous comparison, saying, "You don't need to use a condom. You should be able to tell what partners are clean!"

Bottom line, folks: no matter how good your security is, there are professional organizations out there intent on cracking it to get your password for World of Warcraft accounts, and they're frighteningly good at what they do. And while I know (and am one of) a dozen or more people who I play with, personally, who have been hacked in the last year or two, not a single one of them had an authenticator when they were hacked.

Spend the $6.50, unless you really don't care about WoW anymore.

[Matt David T.]

You literally have no idea what you're talking about, but you're acting like you're in the know and everyone else is inept.

My irony meter just exploded.

EDIT: Not about authenticators, your statements on the subject of authenticators (excepting the hyperbole and random insults) are *shockingly* close to accurate.

[Eurhetemec]

Blizzard already has a line drawn for what they consider to be "cosmetic," and you can see it very clearly in what's available from the Achievement system and the CCG loot cards: Tabards, Titles, Pets, Mounts. (And Achievement Points in general, I guess.) I'm fine with any of those being purchasable with real-world money unequivocally.

I'd disagree. Blizzard have drawn a clear line on what's "cosmetic", but the more they decide to make "for sale", the less they're making for people who actually play the game, and it's dangerous way to go.

It's similar to the DLC issue. The question is, if they weren't selling the item, would the item otherwise have been available? I think if the answer is ever yes, then that's a very bad thing. It's one thing to have the funds from sales fund the development of more things for sale, but they risk alienating a certain section of their customerbase by continuing to do this, if they extend it into things people really care about.

That's what it comes down to, in the end - how much do people care? With these pets, the answer is, not much. Same for almost any pet I can imagine. They're non-combat, non-functional, and indeed an effort has to be made to show them.

When you get to titles and mounts you're beginning to approach a line, though. If you make a mount that people feel that they "should" have (rightfully or ridiculously, it's completely immaterial), and you demand money for it, then you're going to alienate people. Probably not many at first, but if you keep doing it, the circle of "people you've pissed off" will begin to expand, and bitterness will spread.

Like, for me, putting Heirloom items which *cannot* be otherwise obtained (i.e. for slots/specs you can't otherwise get items for) up for sale for real cash, that'd be a line crossed. Does it genuinely hurt me? No! Would it piss me off fantastically? Absolutely yes. Would I quit instantly? No. But I would become considerably irritated, and that's risky, because if anything else irritating happens before I forget about it (and maybe that's a long time), then I probably would quit. It's not like WoW's competition is decreasing - quite the contrary.

On the other hand, if they just wanted to make pretty-but-equal inferior items up for sale for cash, I'd just roll my eyes and not really care.

What I'm saying is, it's a delicate balance, and whilst for serious WoW fans such as yourself, it might not matter, I think even this forum shows that most people are not as keen, and could easily become disgusted or upset if lines are crossed.

All that said, I fully expect those lines to be crossed. It's just a matter of when. Will it be in Cataclysm, or will it be years from now? I suspect the latter.

[Eurhetemec]

My irony meter just exploded.

In my country we say "Takes one to know one". But I sure do know one when I see it. ;)

[IceShadow]

What I'm saying is, it's a delicate balance, and whilst for serious WoW fans such as yourself, it might not matter, I think even this forum shows that most people are not as keen, and could easily become disgusted or upset if lines are crossed.

No, I'm sure you're right. I'm fully aware that I'm far more tolerant about this stuff than a lot of other people might be. To me, it's just an extension of the whole MMO conundrum: what you're doing now and putting 20 hours a week into getting over the course of two weeks is going to take someone 10 minutes to get come next patch or what-not. That's just something I accept in the MMO realm, but not everyone does, and I certainly understand why. Only in this case it's money instead of time...but to me, the difference is rather minimal.

But I do agree that the backlash to anything that's A) also available in game or B) more than a minipet will be very real. Hell, it's already real, just minimal. That would amp it up quite a bit.

[TSCavalier]

I purchased Assassin's Creed from Steam for $10 a couple of weeks ago.

I think they also sold the entire Half-Life 2 Pack for $10 a few months ago.

For $20 (two pets in WoW), you can purchase Guild Wars: Prophecies (hundreds of hours of gameplay, MMO, no sub-fee).

MMO micro-transactions are like like spending $6 for a Double Quarter-Pounder Combo Meal, and then spending another $5 to add packet of ketchup.

I don't understand MMO "bling". It's a terribly inefficient use of your entertainment dollar. You spend $14 a month to play a game so you can spend $10 more for useless "bling".

[Kurotowa]

Blizzard already has a line drawn for what they consider to be "cosmetic," and you can see it very clearly in what's available from the Achievement system and the CCG loot cards: Tabards, Titles, Pets, Mounts. (And Achievement Points in general, I guess.) I'm fine with any of those being purchasable with real-world money unequivocally.

That's about my feeling too. I'd also throw in the gimmick TCG items, which were effectively real money items in the first place. I wouldn't get unsettled until we see something like the AT Tabard that teleports you there. That's close enough to actually useful that it would make me uncomfortable. And a 310% speed mount would definitely be over the line. But I wouldn't have a problem with a for-pay AQ bug mount. Pure vanity, and very tempting. Those things are cool.

[Matt David T.]

I don't understand MMO "bling". It's a terribly inefficient use of your entertainment dollar. You spend $14 a month to play a game so you can spend $10 more for useless "bling".

To be fair, efficiency isn't the only factor here.

If, hypothetically $10 is 0.0001% of your annual income, then you might not be terribly concerned with how efficiently you use it.

[Chucky]

On a lighter note someone in my guild was pugging Naxx when his litlle K.T. killed Mr. Bigglesworth.

[Old Geezer]

I purchased Assassin's Creed from Steam for $10 a couple of weeks ago.

I think they also sold the entire Half-Life 2 Pack for $10 a few months ago.

For $20 (two pets in WoW), you can purchase Guild Wars: Prophecies (hundreds of hours of gameplay, MMO, no sub-fee).

MMO micro-transactions are like like spending $6 for a Double Quarter-Pounder Combo Meal, and then spending another $5 to add packet of ketchup.

I don't understand MMO "bling". It's a terribly inefficient use of your entertainment dollar. You spend $14 a month to play a game so you can spend $10 more for useless "bling".

It's not useless to the person who bought it.

Or alternatively, it's not more useless than the game itself.

All entertainment is "useless", that's its function. Some people think they will be entertained $10 worth by being followed around by a Kung Fu Panda.

If it makes them happy, good for them. Just shows that Blizz was right.

[Seroster]

On a lighter note someone in my guild was pugging Naxx when his litlle K.T. killed Mr. Bigglesworth.

That's pretty funny.

(For those who haven't run Naxx, the end boss, the same Kel'thuzad, the lich, gets very angry if someone kills his cat, which is near the entrance to the dungeon.)

[Rupert]

I don't understand MMO "bling". It's a terribly inefficient use of your entertainment dollar. You spend $14 a month to play a game so you can spend $10 more for useless "bling".

My view on the monetary value of the 'bling' is simple - if those two pets (coming to about about NZ$30 for the pair) gets me more entertainment than seeing a couple of movies (so 5-6 hours of diversion), or a new novel (about the same to start, plus much more if it has good re-reading potential), then they're good value for money. If they are, it just leaves the issue of whether I should be encouraging such sales for my MMO addiction of choice by spending money on them, and whether I can justify spending the money on them, rather than something else (hookers, blow, a new headset, rent...)

[Rupert]

That's about my feeling too. I'd also throw in the gimmick TCG items, which were effectively real money items in the first place. I wouldn't get unsettled until we see something like the AT Tabard that teleports you there. That's close enough to actually useful that it would make me uncomfortable. And a 310% speed mount would definitely be over the line. But I wouldn't have a problem with a for-pay AQ bug mount. Pure vanity, and very tempting. Those things are cool.

Everything you list would seriously annoy me, including the AQ bug mount. The mount itself is fairly easy to get these days (aside from the red one), so this is the same as 'pay for an AQ bug mount that works everywhere'. The CCG mounts already niggle a little, and direct pay ones would really bother me.

EDIT: And yes, I know it's not really rational to be bugged by for-pay mounts, and not by for-pay vanity pets.

[Eurhetemec]

My view on the monetary value of the 'bling' is simple - if those two pets (coming to about about NZ$30 for the pair) gets me more entertainment than seeing a couple of movies (so 5-6 hours of diversion), or a new novel (about the same to start, plus much more if it has good re-reading potential), then they're good value for money. If they are, it just leaves the issue of whether I should be encouraging such sales for my MMO addiction of choice by spending money on them, and whether I can justify spending the money on them, rather than something else (hookers, blow, a new headset, rent...)

Yeah, and this is why it seems staggeringly overpriced to me. It's not a matter of not being able to afford it (though I have far from limitless wealth). But like, if I compare the enjoyment I'd get out of a pet to a movie, it's like fuck the pet. I mean, I have the pets from the original WoW SE, and between all three of them, have they given me as much enjoyment as any movie I went to see at the cinema? Uh, no. I don't go to see terrible movies (last time I saw a bad movie at the cinema was 1998 - Six Days, Seven Nights, which I got to see free anyway - Anne Heche + Ancient Harrison Ford = unsexy couple).

What's particularly hilariously money-grubbing is that they're 10 euros in Europe! That's $15! Though you can currently just buy the US version and use the code saving yourself $5. I guess it's covering imaginary shipping or something.

[davidb]

That's pretty funny.

(For those who haven't run Naxx, the end boss, the same Kel'thuzad, the lich, gets very angry if someone kills his cat, which is near the entrance to the dungeon.)

When I did 10 man Naxx w/ P&W and I killed Mr bigglesworth, i got an earful both in raid chat and on vent.

In BSC, usually its a race to who can zone into the instance fastest and get the optimum 'kill bigglesworth infront of the whole raid' position. Bigglesworth has a raid mean-time-to-death of +/- 30 seconds from the moment raidslot 25 zones in.

To me, this was the definitive differnece between the Kirin Tor horde and alliance guilds. :)

[IceShadow]

When I did 10 man Naxx w/ P&W and I killed Mr bigglesworth, i got an earful both in raid chat and on vent.

In BSC, usually its a race to who can zone into the instance fastest and get the optimum 'kill bigglesworth infront of the whole raid' position. Bigglesworth has a raid mean-time-to-death of +/- 30 seconds from the moment raidslot 25 zones in.

To me, this was the definitive differnece between the Kirin Tor horde and alliance guilds. :)

Look, that cat can do 1 damage to me with EVERY HIT. And he hits like EVERY SECOND. Trust me, he's dangerous.

[Lananshee]

When I did 10 man Naxx w/ P&W and I killed Mr bigglesworth, i got an earful both in raid chat and on vent.

In BSC, usually its a race to who can zone into the instance fastest and get the optimum 'kill bigglesworth infront of the whole raid' position. Bigglesworth has a raid mean-time-to-death of +/- 30 seconds from the moment raidslot 25 zones in.

To me, this was the definitive differnece between the Kirin Tor horde and alliance guilds. :)

I am highly amused by this (espcially as one of the people P&W side who was doing the berating).

[Random Nerd]

When I did 10 man Naxx w/ P&W and I killed Mr bigglesworth, i got an earful both in raid chat and on vent.

In BSC, usually its a race to who can zone into the instance fastest and get the optimum 'kill bigglesworth infront of the whole raid' position. Bigglesworth has a raid mean-time-to-death of +/- 30 seconds from the moment raidslot 25 zones in.

To me, this was the definitive differnece between the Kirin Tor horde and alliance guilds. :)

Look, I did not kill Bigglesworth.

He killed himself, on my lightning shield, when he attacked me. Even if I did, hypothetically, hit him with Wind Shear, are you not aware that that ability does no damage, and in fact reduces aggro? I have it on good authority that it feels like a gentle breeze, and yet we're to believe that the merest touch of airy essence drove that deeply troubled kitten into a suicidal frenzy?

It was suicide-by-shaman. I'm the real victim here.

[Copernicus]

On a lighter note someone in my guild was pugging Naxx when his litlle K.T. killed Mr. Bigglesworth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0_DHuLZmJE

[Chucky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0_DHuLZmJE

I love that the first video Youtube suggested for viewing following that was mini-me gnawing on his cat.