In-Game Store Opinion Thread

[Revolutions]

I think the idea of this store is so far off of the game that blizzard has shaped over the years. I had the same thoughts for the BoE pets they started selling and the exclusive mounts for 20 dollars.

Imo it needs to be how it was pay 15 a month and play to be the best, because once they start going down this slope there isn't really any way to stop, and before you know it we will be able to outright buy levels and pay to have a level 80, 85, maybe even a level 90 be transferred onto your account all for the sake of "saving players time by them spending money"

[Xaxxor]

As long as it doesn't give an unfair advantage.
I know I will never be using a penny on it and I couldn't care less if someone else wants to throw their money away.

[Ryzzen]

Of course it affects me if others get a free pass on dailys and I do not unless I pay.

The point is that what I do in the game has absolutely no bearing on you. I don't get charms now. Does that affect you? I may get them this week. Does that affect you? No, it does not. It's a game and if Blizzard wants to sell things that aren't advantages, ie gear, then what does it matter?

Tell me exactly how someone buying their charms affects you? What does that do to you specifically? Does it make the game harder for you? Does it make it less fun? Does it make your dailies take longer?

Please enlighten us all on how exactly someone getting lesser charms affects your play in any way.

[roostah]

it is good. peeps are already buying this in another form - chinese farmers. this is away to get rid of some of them and make the game more 'secure'.

i also love leveling but hate that it takes (imo) so much time - win win!

[Granyala]

Ingame framework for the Blizzard Shop: ok
Buyable Mounts/Pets: ok

Buyable Buffs/Gear: NOT ok

[NoRest4Wicked]

The point is that what I do in the game has absolutely no bearing on you. I don't get charms now. Does that affect you? I may get them this week. Does that affect you? No, it does not. It's a game and if Blizzard wants to sell things that aren't advantages, ie gear, then what does it matter?

Tell me exactly how someone buying their charms affects you? What does that do to you specifically? Does it make the game harder for you? Does it make it less fun? Does it make your dailies take longer?

Please enlighten us all on how exactly someone getting lesser charms affects your play in any way.

Misery loves company. If he has to suffer through it, so does everyone.

[steroidz]

Really too much of a slippery slope, all the mount artwork effort already gets gobbled up by the blizzard store. I'd hate to see the things such as CM gear or other quality items be cash shop only instead of being achieved in the game.

[Tazila]

I think the idea of this store is so far off of the game that blizzard has shaped over the years. I had the same thoughts for the BoE pets they started selling and the exclusive mounts for 20 dollars.

Imo it needs to be how it was pay 15 a month and play to be the best, because once they start going down this slope there isn't really any way to stop, and before you know it we will be able to outright buy levels and pay to have a level 80, 85, maybe even a level 90 be transferred onto your account all for the sake of "saving players time by them spending money"

A lot of people with multiple accounts were able to get free level 80s from the RAF program they had last year. Ressurect an old account, free level 80, transfer to main account.

[Ryzzen]

The thing is that if i dont pay the price then I fall behind those that do and it's bullshit.

No, sorry, you don't. It's LESSER CHARMS. You grind yours and someone else buys theirs. You are both done for the week and nobody is "behind".

[Forgottenone]

I believe an in-game store can potentially be extremely successive under certain circumstances. You can have just two tabs and from there you can split the store between using RL money and using in-game curreny.

RL MONEY

RL money would simply be used for things they have on the current Blizzard store, which are some vanity mounts and vanity pets. MAYBE transmogrification gear but preferably stay away from that. It is that simple, these items sold here do NOT in ANYWAY affect your characters strength or the economy, they are just flash doodads and nothing more. They can ONLY be obtained from the in-game store/Blizzard store.

OTHER CURRENCY

If you want to begin selling things such as experience increase, justice point increase, honor increase then allow it to be purchased via gold/honor/justice points/honor points/conquest points/valor points. For example spending 4k honor on your main allows you to buy an BoA item that increase your exp gain by 100% for one hour. If raiders/hardcore pvpers are done with conquest/valor and have no need then spending 3k valor would allow them to increase valor gained on other alts by another 50% or 100% for the rest of that week. For conquest do something similar, spend 6k conquest and for that week have your conquest gain on alts double to 100%. This would simply allow us to gear up our alts faster than usual.

CURRENCY CONVERSATION

This is just an idea and perhaps bad but for those who have hundreds upon thousands upon millions of gold with nothing to do, allow them to turn in a fraction of their gold and reward them with currency for their Battle.net Balance. This would allow players in-game a chance to get Blizzard Store mounts by making gold and then turning it in at the in-game store to increase their Battle.net Balance. This would allow players who cannot purchase certain pets/mounts a chance to do so without using RL money but instead using in-game currency that they can actively make anytime they want.


Give feedback if you will but I firmly believe that something like what I mentioned would be helpful and most players could easily live with this. In the end it would NOT affect end-game progression/end-game pvp and everyone would be able to benefit from the store. Those who only pay a subscription and nothing more would have the main benefits (exp/valor/conquest/honor % increase on alts) and they would also have the ability to save up their in-game gold and trade it in at the store for the Battle.net Balance. Allowing them to have a way to get that special pet/mount they wanted but couldn’t afford/didn’t want to spend RL money to get. Those of us who still spend our RL cash on pets/mounts won’t be affected because we still get what we want, more people having the store pets/mounts doesn’t affect or hurt us since if you want to be a special snow-flake there are cooler/rarer mounts/pets in-game that can be farmed.

TL;DR- In-game store is fine if handled the right way. Cosmetic items (pets/mounts/transmog) = RL cash , Currency/Rep Increase (reputations, honor/justice points, etc) = In-game currency (gold, honor, justice points, etc)

[IIamaKing]

No. It will end up like GW2 where you can either grind 5 hours per day for 2 months for a legendary or whip out a credit card and get it in 5 minutes. Many people are ok with that, but it clearly divides communities. (smart from stupid imo )

Well if they start putting actual advantages in game I think a lot of people will peace out. I do not play the Guild War games, But Rift and Lotro have nothing in their shops that cannot be gotten ingame AND store currency can be gotten in game. THIS is the way to do a cash shop.

- - - Updated - - -

Why did they break world's first raiders' ability to faction change their entire guild in week one of a tier to get a new lockout and do normal and heroic the same week? Guild-wide faction changes are cash flow.

world first boss kill =! world first gnome/priest ect. Plus the money lost from a few world first guilds not xfering a guild for a week is nothing.

[TheEaterofSouls]

The thing is that if i dont pay the price then I fall behind those that do and it's bullshit.

You already were for months. Nothing has changed. Logic...

[Chickat]

NO in game advantages, and that includes not being able to buy lesser charms.
Just mounts xp boosts and pets/name changes etc.
Not yet either. Maybe in 2 or 3 years when eu and na need it more. Preferably id they do that id like for them to make wow buy to play like gw2, but that would gut the game as selling bags etc would kill tailors among other things. So if it must come wait and then introduce it when wows really dying. Id prefer it never come though.

[IIamaKing]

I think the idea of this store is so far off of the game that blizzard has shaped over the years. I had the same thoughts for the BoE pets they started selling and the exclusive mounts for 20 dollars.

Imo it needs to be how it was pay 15 a month and play to be the best, because once they start going down this slope there isn't really any way to stop, and before you know it we will be able to outright buy levels and pay to have a level 80, 85, maybe even a level 90 be transferred onto your account all for the sake of "saving players time by them spending money"

That is a poor slippery slope argument. There are plenty of games that do cash shops right.

[Tazila]

NO in game advantages, and that includes not being able to buy lesser charms.
Just mounts xp boosts and pets/name changes etc.
Not yet either. Maybe in 2 or 3 years when eu and na need it more. Preferably id they do that id like for them to make wow buy to play like gw2, but that would gut the game as selling bags etc would kill tailors among other things. So if it must come wait and then introduce it when wows really dying. Id prefer it never come though.

I'm sure they'd rather get an idea of how much money the store could bring in before they turned WoW free to play. Doing it AFTER they go free to play (which will happen one day) is a risk, at least doing it now, while subs are still up, they can see how much income they make and if it can compensate for subs when subs do go away.

[NoRest4Wicked]

NO in game advantages, and that includes not being able to buy lesser charms.
Just mounts xp boosts and pets/name changes etc.
Not yet either. Maybe in 2 or 3 years when eu and na need it more. Preferably id they do that id like for them to make wow buy to play like gw2, but that would gut the game as selling bags etc would kill tailors among other things. So if it must come wait and then introduce it when wows really dying. Id prefer it never come though.

That is a GREAT idea! They need to sell an upgrade for the default backpack in the In-Game Store as well! It's not really game breaking, does 10 less bag slots really ruin your experience? Shouldn't hoard all those items anyways.

[shanthi]

world first boss kill =! world first gnome/priest ect. Plus the money lost from a few world first guilds not xfering a guild for a week is nothing.

In other words, you agree that they have shown that they'll turn off a revenue stream during a period of world's first racing, but it's inconvenient to your claim.

[IIamaKing]

In other words, you agree that they have shown that they'll turn off a revenue stream during a period of world's first racing, but it's inconvenient to your claim.

In other words turning off a dripping faucet is not the same as turning off a fully open hose. Also They NEVER intended for guilds to be able to transfer to avoid raid lock outs. The stated this when they shut of xfers for that small time THEN they fixed the issue in the system that allowed IDs to reset.

[Demonae]

It is time for WoW to switch to a micro-transaction model and go Free to Play.

[shanthi]

In other words turning off a dripping faucet is not the same as turning off a fully open hose. Also They NEVER intended for guilds to be able to transfer to avoid raid lock outs. The stated this when they shut of xfers for that small time THEN they fixed the issue in the system that allowed IDs to reset.

And yet you know that they intended for this xp buff to be used for world's first leveling races? The point is, they've shown that they're willing to put limits on what advantages their micro-transactions can be used to get, so it's hardly implausible that they'll turn it off during the one or two days that people are going for world's first max level.

I'm not saying that they certainly will or certainly won't, but your implication that it's insane to think that they might is not well-supported by precedent, IMO.