I want them to finally sell a mount named Invisible, which just has the character in a sitting position floating through the air on nothing.
Always remember, freedom of speech is very important to everyone...as long as what you have to say coincides with what everyone else's popular opinion is.
WoW is "bleeding" money over the past year or two - and no amount of new content is going to bring it up to 12 million subbers.
You can expect it to keep dropping still simply because the old players are gone and the new players don't want to commit to high end raiding and difficult stuff.
The only way blizz can keep WoW at it's quality level is by adding alternate money making methods, like this one.
Without them, WoW would end up having such horrible bugg-filled content like SWToR has.
These store implementations were OBVIOUSLY coming when they opened this store years ago.
If you did not see them incoming then that is your problem, but if you think that they are going to be wrong for the game's development - then that is truly unfortunate and shortsighted.
Either way i can't be arsed to try and explain simple and obvious things to random strangers more than 2 or 3 times. If you understand, great - if not, go collect shrubberies...
Timewalking - ALL dungeons/raids in WoW available at any time (LFD matchmaking style)!
I don't think that they can keep wow running on the pet store alone.
Mother pus bucket!
And I'm sure most people are upset because this will probably effect the quality of rewards in game, I mentioned earlier that the DS drop/glory mounts were RESKINS of old drakes while the glorious and cool looking Heart of the aspects was a pet store mount. Same with 5.2... ToT glory mount is really ugly, (something kinda new but still ugly as hell) while the bat mount is amazing.
Now they will do the same for the gear, look at all these ugly sets they made for t16, then look at that epic Ice crown. Why should we pay extra for cool looking stuff if we don't want to look ugly as hell in game? We pay them to make a better game for us, not to charge us extras... plus the game store may work for other games but that's because they are F2P, while their subscription gives the subscribers a "loyalty" sort of bonus that gives them every month a currency which can purchase these unobtainable items... I bet bli$$ard won't even do that.
If you deny all this then I'm sure there is no point in having an argument with you anymore.
Also, the bat is... a bat. It's cleaned and polished a bit, but it's a bat.
I do understand the criticisms about this model but I played LoTRO before WOW and to be honest, the store was always unintrusive to me. OK, there are some cool things on the store but you don't have to buy them if you personally feel that you disagree with the whole setup. If you don't fancy grinding or trawling through content you've farmed years earlier, buy some transmogs, look cool! But as someone who transmogs I must say that it's gutting to have great looking gear that isn't pushing the max item level. That's still gonna be the key to top tier content and a few store items aren't going to change that. And you know what? Call me crazy but I want Blizzard to make more money. I enjoy their games and I'd like to think that the extra revenue will help fund better products in the future.
Whether you like them or not, these helmets have the look and feel of expansion-ending tier gear, given the unique models, amounts of detail and particle effects. Conventionally these would've been a reward for doing something awesome.
I'm not one to criticize how Blizzard uses it's art assets. As far as I've seen the new raid tier is looking good just as well. They're not stupid - they understand that motivating people to consume new content is a high priority. I just personally preferred it when you, at the bare minimum, needed some patience with RNG to look good, and you could always tell when someone put a little effort in their looks. Right now you can obviously tell these helmets from a mile away, but if (and when) they add more cosmetic armor, the lines are going to get blurry on who bought their looks and who played for them.
Anyway now I need to get going and I've pretty much explained my point of view as elaborately as I can. In hindsight I probably should've been more verbose in my original post.
These new helms look better than most of the stuff we see dropping from bosses today though :/ Not to mention they're shiny and have nice effects.
How come we need to pay for these, when they could just implement them into a tier set?
Everyone is moaning about how dull and awful the artwork for gear has gotten recently, and then we see these new helms which look pretty badass, but they're only for sale with real life money. A lot of people would complain less if they were available in game, and Blizz added new pets or something else instead to buy from the pet store.
I wonder if MMO Moderators ever see a new news post on the front page and go, "Oh Lord, how many threads am I going to have to heavily monitor/lock today?"
Edit: And players have been paying for extra content since day one. Does "Collector's Edition" ring a bell to anyone?
Blizzard lost all credibility when they sold the guardian cub, allowing rich people to buy gold from other players for real money.
But even as far back as when they sold the celestial steed, people were saying it's all cosmetic so it doesn't matter. Nonsense. Even back then I had argued that cosmetic microtransactions could get out of hand, and now they have. With this change, why not add the following:
1. $15 for improve spell graphics and animations.
2. $15 for armor dyes.
3. $25 for updated character models.
4. $30 for adding glows and sparkles to weapons and armors.
5. $40 for dance studio.
6. $60 for player housing.
7. A real-money-to-gold player-driven AH to provide the same functionality as the guardian cub.
This is completely outrageous. They are using subscriptions to fund the development of content to sell it again. They're selling what's already bought.
The same goes with Transmog gear. It's completely optional content. The argument that this takes away from pay-per-month resources is a fallacy, considering these optional items more-than cover the costs to make them, and the time invested.