Scott Hartsman on Rift subs, Twinks and maybe cross faction play?

[Tarien]

This thread shouldn't be about Wow.

It's not, it's about how certain developers approach monetising their game

Also baring in mind what you just wrote, you then finish with:

They've stated multiple times they've learned from their mistakes (IE losing 2 million subs), and will be doing things much differently in MoP.

(I see another WOLTK in the making)

This thread shouldn't be about WoW

[mavfin]

It's not rationalisation, it is the difference between what is reasonable acceptable and greed.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. When selling optional items for revenue, there's nothing evil or greedy about making money from people with money to spend, imo. None of the Blizzard store mounts are particularly compelling to me versus the ones available in-game. A couple of the pets are pretty cool, I'll admit, but, again, they're just pets, and they're just $10. Again, agree to disagree, and put WoW to bed in this thread, after Pure woke it up.

[Tarien]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. When selling optional items for revenue, there's nothing evil or greedy about making money from people with money to spend, imo. None of the Blizzard store mounts are particularly compelling to me versus the ones available in-game. A couple of the pets are pretty cool, I'll admit, but, again, they're just pets, and they're just $10. Again, agree to disagree, and put WoW to bed in this thread, after Pure woke it up.

I guess we will. I just think that after making so much money in subscriptions, they don't need to make more money from the players, and taking more than you need is pretty much the definition of greed. I understand that companies are out to make money, but again there is surely a point where they are well beyond making a reasonable profit, and again it turns from your need to make a profit, to your greed in making as much money as possible no matter the cost.

Imo Blizzard are clearly not reinvesting as much back into WoW as they should be. The expansions and new content are almost formulaic in how they are delivered and what they contain, time between patches is much longer than it used to be or could be, and until this last year when we've started seeing some MMOs that threaten WoWs dominance there have been precious few innovations.

I also appreciate that things like mounts and pets are optional, account services too to a lesser degree, and that individually the prices are not that much (though imagine moving all your chars to another server to get into a guild guild, busier server, or play with friends). But just because it doesn't impact you doesn't make it any less greedy. Oil prices don't affect me directly, because I don't currently own a car so I don't need to buy fuel at whatever inflated price oil companies are setting today. But indirectly those higher fuel prices have a knock on effect on any product that has to be transported (ie, everything) each time it is transported.

So while Blizzards pets and mounts aren't affecting you, the fact that they can make money selling a mount, or from charging for server transfers, means that they are less motivated to make money by creating great content to attract more subscriptions. They will literally be in a position where they can say, well we're x% short of this quarters goal, someone make a new mount/pet/vanity item.

I'm sure it's not as clean cut as that but you see my point. Anyway, moving on as you say.

[notorious98]

Well that is because back then Jan 11' everyone was putting pressure on Blizz to hold up to their promises. Now you are stuck with 5+ months of Dragon soul with another 4 months atleast to go. Honestly you guys deserve to stagnate because you are supposed to tell Blizzard what to do not the other way around.

I cancelled my WoW sub months ago. How much more can I possibly tell them about how bad I think their policies are? Nearly 2 million people left during Cata. I think that's a decent number of subs telling Blizz how they feel about their product.

---------- Post added 2012-04-22 at 01:46 PM ----------

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. When selling optional items for revenue, there's nothing evil or greedy about making money from people with money to spend, imo. None of the Blizzard store mounts are particularly compelling to me versus the ones available in-game. A couple of the pets are pretty cool, I'll admit, but, again, they're just pets, and they're just $10. Again, agree to disagree, and put WoW to bed in this thread, after Pure woke it up.

Making money and exploiting your client base are two different things. It doesn't matter how much a mount or pet costs, it shouldn't be for sale in a P2P model. I pay $15 a month to get content. I shouldn't have to pay more to get additional content that could just as easily be thrown in as an achievement. It's rewarding your customer base for being loyal and paying their salaries. The model that Blizzard has implemented is just an exploitation. It's a joke and pathetic. $20 for a mount and yet less content in your patches? Really, really sad.

[mavfin]

It doesn't matter how much a mount or pet costs, it shouldn't be for sale in a P2P model. I pay $15 a month to get content. I shouldn't have to pay more to get additional content that could just as easily be thrown in as an achievement. It's rewarding your customer base for being loyal and paying their salaries.

Excuse me, but Rift sells a mount and a pet for $10. Sure, it's less money, and they call it something different, but in the end *they're still selling it* for cash on top of what they sell the game for. I bought the game for 14.99 and paid another 10 bucks for the fluff so I'd have a scalable mount on every toon. So, Trion is OK, and Blizzard is evil? I didn't feel exploited and knew it was optional, but that's not the issue at hand here.

By what you just wrote above, Trion should not get a free pass on this from any of you who call Blizzard evil for it. No matter what you think of the practice, one company is no better than the other when it comes to selling fluff. They should have given those mounts out only in-game, not sold for cash, by what you wrote and I quoted.

Put simply, I don't care what your personal opinion on the practice is. YMMV, and all that. But to vilify one company as greedy and exploiting for doing the same as another company, is just contradicting yourself. "It's evil if they do it, but if Trion does it, it's fine!" is not working for me.

Edit; "I don't like the practice, and it shouldn't be done!" I have no problem with. But "I don't like the practice and Blizzard shouldn't do it, but Trion is just doing it a little, and is OK" is just contradictory. Just sounds like you're making up reasons to bash Blizzard, not out of any real convictions on the issue of selling fluff. Hating Blizzard is fine, too, but just say so, don't cover it up in this other thing that you give Trion a free pass on.

[Iechinok]

Mavfin, I think one of the main issues that people have here is that Blizzard's doing it as a legitimate source of their income, while Trion's doing so as to not irritate the players that payed for differing versions of the collector's packs. Since those 2 packs, which are both only 10 dollars each, Trion hasn't really given off much of a hint as to suggest that they'd start doing it regularly.

While both have something similar, you can't argue that the intents of which are differing greatly. Blizzard is out for pure profit, and does so regularly. Trion kept two collector's packs up from a good ways back, and don't want to take them down in case people gripe about not having the option for them.

[Tarien]

Excuse me, but Rift sells a mount and a pet for $10. Sure, it's less money, and they call it something different, but in the end *they're still selling it* for cash on top of what they sell the game for.

There are Canadian CE owners, Original CE owners, and non-CE owners. We'll call them Canada, Original and None, respectively.

Let's imagine that Trion decides to give Original and None owners the mount for free. Canada is going to be pissed, because what the hell did they just shell out for the CE for?

Let's imagine that Trion decides to give Original the mount for free, but None doesn't get it. Now None is pissed, because they have to go out and buy another full copy of the game (the more expensive CE version no less) in order to obtain the mount(s).

Let's imagine that Trion decides no one gets the mount. Now Original and None are pissed, because if they want the mount they feel like they have to go and buy the full Canadian CE to get it.

So Trion says okay, None if you pay the difference between non-CE and CE, you can have the CE, you CE owners can buy the other CE if you want to.

The difference is that Trion is letting people upgrade to the CE, not selling a stand alone mount/pet/whatever.

Put simply, I don't care what your personal opinion on the practice is. YMMV, and all that. But to vilify one company as greedy and exploiting for doing the same as another company, is just contradicting yourself. "It's evil if they do it, but if Trion does it, it's fine!" is not working for me.

If Blizzard were offering people digital CE upgrades for the price difference between normal and CE, fine whatever. But that is not what they are doing, they are specifically diverting developer resources for the purpose of creating cosmetic content for sale, often at outlandish prices. 2-3 pets/mounts is equivalent in price to an entire expansion box cost. It's hilarious.

[Moomurr]

The difference is that Trion is letting people upgrade to the CE, not selling a stand alone mount/pet/whatever.

I dont think reason will work on him. If he has come to the conclusion that Trion letting people pay £5 to get an awesome mount that most of the population of the game got dicked out off by the Canadian CE edition is the same as Blizzard selling multiple pets/mounts for $10-$25 then you may as well give up. This thread has been derailed enough by his intractable opinion.

[DeltrusDisc]

This thread shouldn't be about Wow.

They've stated multiple times they've learned from their mistakes (IE losing 2 million subs), and will be doing things much differently in MoP.

(I see another WOLTK in the making)

Yet they just put out another pet to buy in the store.

Sorry but no, they are still planning to exploit people.

---------- Post added 2012-04-22 at 07:34 PM ----------

Oh and I'll throw in, unlike Blizzard, Trion don't charge for transferring your character. I remember having to transfer 3 of my characters with my guild back in late 2010. $75!!! All I got was a transfer, that's it. And why does it cost that much? Why do the mounts cost $25? Why do the pets cost $10? I can assure you it's not because it cost that much to transfer your toon (it's all automated now) and the mounts and pets are just reskins lol.

It's all about extra revenue, it's called milking.

Trion have thus far only offered both of the CEs to anyone who truly wants it, and it is frankly very cheap and more or less just an upgrade, so it's about $10. And that's a lot more than $10 will buy you from Blizzard! $10 from Blizz? You get a pet. $10 from Trion? You get a mount, and a pet with a special use, on top of a tabard I believe and I think still, yet something else.

You say you don't play WoW anymore Mavfin, so why are you defending Blizzard so much?

[notorious98]

Excuse me, but Rift sells a mount and a pet for $10. Sure, it's less money, and they call it something different, but in the end *they're still selling it* for cash on top of what they sell the game for. I bought the game for 14.99 and paid another 10 bucks for the fluff so I'd have a scalable mount on every toon. So, Trion is OK, and Blizzard is evil? I didn't feel exploited and knew it was optional, but that's not the issue at hand here.

By what you just wrote above, Trion should not get a free pass on this from any of you who call Blizzard evil for it. No matter what you think of the practice, one company is no better than the other when it comes to selling fluff. They should have given those mounts out only in-game, not sold for cash, by what you wrote and I quoted.

Put simply, I don't care what your personal opinion on the practice is. YMMV, and all that. But to vilify one company as greedy and exploiting for doing the same as another company, is just contradicting yourself. "It's evil if they do it, but if Trion does it, it's fine!" is not working for me.

Edit; "I don't like the practice, and it shouldn't be done!" I have no problem with. But "I don't like the practice and Blizzard shouldn't do it, but Trion is just doing it a little, and is OK" is just contradictory. Just sounds like you're making up reasons to bash Blizzard, not out of any real convictions on the issue of selling fluff. Hating Blizzard is fine, too, but just say so, don't cover it up in this other thing that you give Trion a free pass on.

#1 Paying for a Collector's Edition is one thing. Blizzard had a Collector's Edition that included an in-game pet and I don't have a problem with that. It comes out with the game or the expansion. On the other hand, using resources to create a mount during the existing life of your current xpac, while pushing out LESS content, and charging for it is exploitation. The difference between what Trion has done by offering a pet that came with the original Collector's Edition and had no current resources used to create and what Blizz has done is so incredibly vast it would take a retard of considerable magnitude to compare the two.

#2 I don't play Rift and I never even brought Rift up as a comparison in anything that I said. Your edit is just foolish and uninformed. But, like I said in #1, comparing the two when it comes to selling fluff is misguided. Do me a favor. Head to the Riftgame.com and find me the Rift store. Then tell me how similar they are to Blizzard. Go ahead. I'll wait.

[Acquiesce of Telara]

Way I see it, Blizz has every right to sell anything they want, and players have every right to purchase or not, said items; that's hardly in contention. I personally think it's silly spending 50 bucks to get a transfer and a mount, as those two items are apparently worth more than an entire expansion, and that's what I find sad.

Notorious, while I certainly favor Trion over Blizz, there's nothing guaranteed to the consumer when purchasing an expansion as Blizzard isn't held by any contract to the consumer. Anything they provide is part of a service you (general) sign up for. You're contracted to abide by rules, they are not. It's a one way street that can only be avoided by finding companies that are desperate to please you.

Mafvin, I don't feel that Trion's shop is remotely similar to Blizz's, personally. If Blizzard awarded the Spirit of Competition pet to people who signed up for PvP, and later decided to sell that (or a reskinned version) to others who couldn't participate, I'd see the resemblance.

[mavfin]

Way I see it, Blizz has every right to sell anything they want, and players have every right to purchase or not, said items; that's hardly in contention. I personally think it's silly spending 50 bucks to get a transfer and a mount, as those two items are apparently worth more than an entire expansion, and that's what I find sad.

Actually, the spider and the turtle cost more than buying Rift did for me. 14.99 for Rift, the game, vs $20.00 (2x10.00) to upgrade to both CE fluff packs. So, by your quote above, that's also pretty sad. Two mounts plus other fluff sold for more cash than the original game. So again, it's ok for Trion, but 'sad' for Blizzard?

Again, I don't really care about whether they sell fluff or not, because as you say, that's up to the company. I'm just rolling my eyes at the contention that Trion selling mounts is any different than Blizzard doing it. Two Blizzard mounts or mount+character move > cost of game or expansion, yes. But the same is true for Trion. Two mounts+ other fluff > cost of original game. Trion used precious dev resources to do those two mounts at least as much as Blizzard did for the sparkly horse.

[notorious98]

Way I see it, Blizz has every right to sell anything they want, and players have every right to purchase or not, said items; that's hardly in contention. I personally think it's silly spending 50 bucks to get a transfer and a mount, as those two items are apparently worth more than an entire expansion, and that's what I find sad.

Notorious, while I certainly favor Trion over Blizz, there's nothing guaranteed to the consumer when purchasing an expansion as Blizzard isn't held by any contract to the consumer. Anything they provide is part of a service you (general) sign up for. You're contracted to abide by rules, they are not. It's a one way street that can only be avoided by finding companies that are desperate to please you.

I never made any assumptions that Blizzard OWES anything. However, I don't find what they do to be any less exploitative.

---------- Post added 2012-04-22 at 06:20 PM ----------

Actually, the spider and the turtle cost more than buying Rift did for me. 14.99 for Rift, the game, vs $20.00 (2x10.00) to upgrade to both CE fluff packs. So, by your quote above, that's also pretty sad. Two mounts plus other fluff sold for more cash than the original game. So again, it's ok for Trion, but 'sad' for Blizzard?

Again, I don't really care about whether they sell fluff or not, because as you say, that's up to the company. I'm just rolling my eyes at the contention that Trion selling mounts is any different than Blizzard doing it. Two Blizzard mounts or mount+character move > cost of game or expansion, yes. But the same is true for Trion. Two mounts+ other fluff > cost of original game. Trion used precious dev resources to do those two mounts at least as much as Blizzard did for the sparkly horse.

You'll never get it, bro. You're either clueless, a troll, or a moron.


<Mod edit: Please do not insult or call out people for trolling if you feel a post is questionable report it and move on>

[Acquiesce of Telara]

Actually, the spider and the turtle cost more than buying Rift did for me. 14.99 for Rift, the game, vs $20.00 (2x10.00) to upgrade to both CE fluff packs. So, by your quote above, that's also pretty sad. Two mounts plus other fluff sold for more cash than the original game. So again, it's ok for Trion, but 'sad' for Blizzard?

Again, I don't really care about whether they sell fluff or not, because as you say, that's up to the company. I'm just rolling my eyes at the contention that Trion selling mounts is any different than Blizzard doing it. Two Blizzard mounts or mount+character move > cost of game or expansion, yes. But the same is true for Trion. Two mounts+ other fluff > cost of original game. Trion used precious dev resources to do those two mounts at least as much as Blizzard did for the sparkly horse.

That's actually a pretty valid criticism of my argument, so well played, good sir.

If I changed my standard of comparison, say "2 mounts = 3 months of content" the argument might play out differently, but it doesn't really matter much to me. If people feel comfortable shelling out cash for services and digital goods, more power to them and Blizzard (or Trion). If you (general) are completely opposed to it, sweet, good on ya.

Paying for mounts does amount to an unfair advantage, however minor. That goes for Blizz, Trion, and anyone else who sells scalable mounts: you save gold/plat whatever and can travel more quickly than others. Fortunately, that benefit doesn't last long, and provides the most benefit at the levels that produce the least. As mounts aren't the only purchasable good, it's only a fraction of the money one may spend.

[mavfin]

I never made any assumptions that Blizzard OWES anything. However, I don't find what they do to be any less exploitative.

I find it difficult to call anything 'exploitative' in the 'luxury' category of things, and that's what games are, but w/e floats your boat. I reserve that term for things that are necessities.

By the same thought process, I guess Ferrari selling their cars for such huge prices is also 'exploitative'. You don't 'need' a Ferrari, and you don't 'need' a video game. People can make decisions to buy or not buy stuff in a video game, or indeed the game itself w/o coming near anything important to their lives. Or at least I'd hope they could. If not, that in itself would be 'sad'.

[Azuri]

Another thread that has run it's course and gone off topic. Safe thing to do is close it now.