Why doesn't blizzard do something like GW2 Gems?

[LuminousAether]

Blizzard should copy almost nothing from GW2, least of all their pay to win nonsense.

---------- Post added 2012-11-14 at 09:21 PM ----------

but its not really working any more. Blizzard is stagnant. They are up for sale (and no one wants them). They need to do something and this would entice a lot of people being able to fully play the game for free.

LOL Blizzard is one of the most profitable video game developers around.

[Deleted]

I left Arenanet before this system was implemented (I was part of their Events QA team). Let me ask you, how are the gems acquired. Last I had heard (this was 2 years ago before the first Gamescom demo was done) players would spend real money to get the gems, then they could use the gems for in game services. Is that still how it works?

You can buy them with real money, but you can also trade in game gold for the gems.

[Dasffion]

Actiblizz stocks have been stagnant since the merger. Their owner is trying to sell them, but no one is even interested in buying them. Without changes to something to get actiblizzard making more money they are probably gonna eventually be sold off just for their IPs (CoD, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) to do a preemptive cut on their losses.

This is nonsense. They merged in 2008, stocks were going up until 2010. Since then it's been up and down.

Also Vivendi is the majority share-holder, not the owner. They want to get out of the video game business and back more into Music and Telecom, where their roots are. Blizzard isn't going anywhere though, they're not going to be sold off for their IPs. When the merger happened they remained autonomous. It's not going to change.

As for your idea, the reason it works for GW2 is because GW2 is a F2P/P2W model. WoW is a P2P model. Things that work in one won't work in the other.

[Deleted]

Blizzard should copy almost nothing from GW2, least of all their pay to win nonsense.

---------- Post added 2012-11-14 at 09:21 PM ----------



LOL Blizzard is one of the most profitable video game developers around.

There is no pay to win nonsense you don't buy gear with it, it's quality of life things like extra bagslots, toon slots or cosmetic gear you buy with the gems.

[Ferocity]

This idea was implemented not only in GW2 and Eve, but also currently by Sony (Krono).

It is not necessary for game to be f2p for having such feature. Only source of gems would be Blizzard store. But it would help with retaining players. For one player virtual gold means a lot (not necessarily in bad sense, farming/AHing takes time too) and 15$ are not much in comparison, for other player it might become hard to pay sub cost if he doesn't happen to like game as much as before, but he'd keep playing (for chat or just to see changes in game) if could buy sub time this way.

[LuminousAether]

There is no pay to win nonsense you don't buy gear with it, it's quality of life things like extra bagslots, toon slots or cosmetic gear you buy with the gems.

Dude, I played the game. Extra bank slots are mandatory.

[Deleted]

I have no clue what drawbacks people see.
Right now:
-the people with most money to spend get character transfers, others reroll or quit
-many servers are dead
-Blizzard gets some money

Possible:
-the people with most money spend them to buy gems, transfer with gems, and also put gems for sale so other people can buy them and they get gold. To get more gold, said people buy more gems, it's a sort of gold buying from Blizzard.
-dead servers fully die, but players from them move to other servers using gems bought with gold, so they're happy.
-Blizzard gets more money, as more people buy the gems to get gold.

Why, because its an absurd system for a game where you pay a sub fee. Not to mention GW2 gems are expensive as all hell. £10 for 800 gems or something, F off.

Even more absurd then paying 25$ per character to move?

[Komie]

I left Arenanet before this system was implemented (I was part of their Events QA team). Let me ask you, how are the gems acquired. Last I had heard (this was 2 years ago before the first Gamescom demo was done) players would spend real money to get the gems, then they could use the gems for in game services. Is that still how it works?

It works both ways in GW2. You can spend real money to buy gems.... or you can spend in game money to buy gems.

[Deleted]

Dude, I played the game. Extra bank slots are mandatory.

Not really but it definetly doesn't hurt if you have several toons, how is that pay to win though? perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by this, I meant you cannot purchase anything that will give your toons increased performance over others in pvp or elsewhere.

[Greel]

I would like it a lot, but Blizzard's not gonna do that, they would lose a lot of money.

Blizzard would not lose any money, and would probably make money. Regardless of how many people buy this new real money currency with in game gold, someone somewhere still had to purchase it with real money.

The PLEX cards in EVE are a perfect example. If Blizzard did something like that, a million people could pay for their subscriptions with these things and blizz would not lose a single penny, because at the end of the day those million "PLEX" cards still had to be bought with real money.

This however would make it easier for gold sellers to make gold with stolen credit cards, which is probably Blizzard's main reason for not doing anything like this.

[Deleted]

How would they lose any money? They would be making more money.

If you could buy all that stuff for gold? Ingame gold that you can earn, that a lot of us already have a ton of. Instead of actual real money.

---------- Post added 2012-11-15 at 12:03 AM ----------

Blizzard would not lose any money, and would probably make money. Regardless of how many people buy this new real money currency with in game gold, someone somewhere still had to purchase it with real money.

But for every person, who buys it with ingame gold, that's money Blizzard doesn't get.
People would be able to buy their subscription, transfers and other stuff with gold. Of course they would lose a lot money from this.

The PLEX cards in EVE are a perfect example. If Blizzard did something like that, a million people could pay for their subscriptions with these things and blizz would not lose a single penny, because at the end of the day those million "PLEX" cards still had to be bought with real money.

This however would make it easier for gold sellers to make gold with stolen credit cards, which is probably Blizzard's main reason for not doing anything like this.

Those PLEX cards would be a different thing, but you yourself gave a good reason why Blizzard will probably not do anything like that.

[Mercarcher]

If you could buy all that stuff for gold? Ingame gold that you can earn, that a lot of us already have a ton of. Instead of actual real money.

---------- Post added 2012-11-15 at 12:03 AM ----------



But for every person, who buys it with ingame gold, that's money Blizzard doesn't get.
People would be able to buy their subscription, transfers and other stuff with gold. Of course they would lose a lot money from this.



Those PLEX cards would be a different thing, but you yourself gave a good reason why Blizzard will probably not do anything like that.

For every person that buys a month of game time with in game gold blizzard would get $15 because the only way to get the currency is for someone to buy them for money. They aren't created for free. Blizzard would make more money than they are now because there would always be some of the currency in circulation.

[blackblade]

I would like it a lot, but Blizzard's not gonna do that, they would lose a lot of money.

How?

I mean, I don't support it one way or the other, but at the end of the day, this "Premium Currency" has to come from somewhere.

They still get their 25$ if Joe sells me the gems to do a server transfer. If nothing else, they'll make money by making "gems" sold for 10$=100 gems, and a server transfer costs 250 gems, leaving 50 gems rotting.

The typical Microsoft Points tactic.

[Deleted]

For every person that buys a month of game time with in game gold blizzard would get $15 because the only way to get the currency is for someone to buy them for money. They aren't created for free. Blizzard would make more money than they are now because there would always be some of the currency in circulation.

How?

I mean, I don't support it one way or the other, but at the end of the day, this "Premium Currency" has to come from somewhere.

They still get their 25$ if Joe sells me the gems to do a server transfer. If nothing else, they'll make money by making "gems" sold for 10$=100 gems, and a server transfer costs 250 gems, leaving 50 gems rotting.

The typical Microsoft Points tactic.

In your OP you didn't say that someone has to buy them with real money first.

[Kanadei]

Vivendi has been trying to sell their 61% share of ATVI since August. They have approached every major game publisher from Microsoft to EA to Disney and not a single one has been interested in buying them.

I'm sorry, since you are obviously an ActiBlizz employee and a major player in the games industry maybe you can clear something up for me.

Is it that these major game publishers don't want a franchise which posts billions in profit every financial year? Or that they don't have the capital lying around to make such a massive investment?

I know Disney recently made a large purchase you may or may not be aware of. Let's try and keep in mind that can't afford ≠ don't want.

[volescue]

Blizzard should copy almost nothing from GW2, least of all their pay to win nonsense.

Have you even tried the system? The only things you can buy affect leveling or farming or are cosmetic.

[Xeraxis]

Actiblizz stocks have been stagnant since the merger. Their owner is trying to sell them, but no one is even interested in buying them. Without changes to something to get actiblizzard making more money they are probably gonna eventually be sold off just for their IPs (CoD, Warcraft, Diablo, Starcraft) to do a preemptive cut on their losses.

I wasn't aware that the meaning of stagnant was growth. I'll have to look through the dictionary more often it seems words are meaning the exact opposite of what they once meant.

[Orange Joe]

If you could buy all that stuff for gold? Ingame gold that you can earn, that a lot of us already have a ton of. Instead of actual real money.

A blue posted not that long ago. Only a small % of the playerbase has over 50k gold

http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/2...-be-increased/

[beanman12345]

So your saying, that blizz isn't making money with wow, and the only way they can make money is going free to play? right.....

[Preston Maxtor]

I'm sorry, since you are obviously an ActiBlizz employee and a major player in the games industry maybe you can clear something up for me.

Is it that these major game publishers don't want a franchise which posts billions in profit every financial year? Or that they don't have the capital lying around to make such a massive investment?

I know Disney recently made a large purchase you may or may not be aware of. Let's try and keep in mind that can't afford ≠ don't want.

Because no company wants to invest in something that is so unstable, can't keep subs stable for more than 2 consecutive quarters, and a genre that is half dead, and a payment model that is so dead that this is the last successful mainstream game using it.

It's not hard to figure out that there's a bloody good reason Vivendi would want to sell their shares. If nothing was wrong financially, why the hell would they just up and throw away billions of dollars long term profits? Because the long term isn't good. They know this, and they want off the boat with all the spoils before it sails.