UPD: I think, people missing the point of this thread. It's not another one "against donate" thread. No. I'm playing some F2P games and don't see anything bad in having some paid options for players, who really need this options, cuz it's much more better, then have "it will never happen, cuz not all players need it" communism. This thread is simply asking you a question: isn't it double standards, that Blizzard are using extremely subjective "bad for game" argument in case of one feature, while implementing even "worse" feature without any doubts? May be they should stop putting on a comedy and admit, that they are exaggerating negative impact from features like 3rd spec too much too? Otherwise, if they won't, then they should admit, that telling us about "daydreaming about worst case scenarios" in case of paid boost to 90lvl - is hypocrisy and double standards too. You just can't be black and white at the same time, you can't be "double" - you should pick one side.
First of all, let me give definition of double standards, how I understand it: it's subjective prejudiced relation to something. I.e. when the same arguments/facts/rules/etc. are applied to the same object or person differently, depending on one's subjective relation to this object or person. For example, if your friend would call you moron, you would most likely forgive him, but if some stranger on a street would call you moron, you would most likely react much more harder.
So, I want to ask you some question. I think, everybody have already read this topic. Don't you think, that Blizzard's relation to paid boost to 90lvl is definitely "double standarded"? Let's take a look at the situation. When players are asking Blizzard to do something and Blizzard don't want to do it, then they find 100500 ridiculous reasons not to do it. Let's make some examples:
Joining RU and EU BGs together. They're joined now, but several years ago Blizzard was refusing to do it and found many reasons not to.
1) Technical problems. Proved to be lie after several accidental joints.
2) Cyrillic symbols in nicks are shown as ????. Could be resolved via adding Cyrillic fonts into client (EU client for Russian players with EU account was fixed that way) or even via transliterating. (What's wrong with seeing something like Vasyanpro?).
3) Other players won't be able to read and pronounce Russian nicks - it may cause problems in team's communication. Have somebody really ever read opposite team's nicks??? Transliteration is greatest way to solve this problem again.
4) Players from other countries don't have Cyrillic keyboard layout - they won't be able to reproduce Russian nicks in tickets and reports. Yea... And Europeans was allowed to use any special symbols (Ðñøβæ) in their nicks and there were no problems with it.
5) Russian nicks may theoretically appear offensive to players from other countries. (No comments, just stupid reason)
Another example: 3rd spec. Many players are asking to add it for many years already, but Blizzard are finding more and more ridiculous reasons not to do it:
1) Players will need gear on all specs at once. Bags bloat, caused by storing several sets of gear, as a consequence. They're doing is anyway and now the situation is even worse - everybody needs everything he wants. Bags bloat - is common problem.
2) Players will start min-maxing via storing the same spec with only few changes made. Not actual anymore. Now situational talents - is intended design. Simply put some restriction on ability to choose the same spec - you're game developers or who? Disabled people? And what % of players are playing seriously enough to min-max? 1% of hardcore players? Should Blizzard really care about them?
3) Players will be forced to have 3rd spec, just because they can, for min-maxing purposes. Same problem as with #2. What players could be forced to have 3rd spec? Hardcore raiders? They are respeccing for every boss anyway - it would make their life only easier. Most players simply won't do it, cuz they don't care about min-maxing - they don't even have enchants and gems, lol. What's the problem? (One of those "overexaggerated negative impact" arguments).
4) It will remove interesting choices from game. It's proved, that there is nothing interesting in choosing, which two of 3 or 4 specs you need - if you'll need to respec, you'll just respec and being required to port to city and spend 66g to do it - is just unnecessary inconvenience. Choice is in whether you want to have 3rd spec or not.
5) Most recent - it will kill class/spec uniqueness. Yeah, there was nothing bad in removing many things, that were providing class/spec uniqueness - arrows, bullets, quivers, ranged/relic slots, soul shards, placeable totems, unique class/spec buffs, etc. And it won't be something bad in removing many of gear itemization and customization in WOD.
But here is the Bashiok's answer to player, who complained, that instant 90lvls will completely remove such large piece of content from game, as leveling, which will be really bad for game, player's experience and especially for new players:
Yeeaaahhh... I think it's really easy and even attractive to people to daydream about worst case scenarios. I can't think of any games I've purchased where I thought the first thing I would do is create a high level character and skip the new game I just got, even if that option was available to me. I just paid for a game, and my first instinct is to not at least check out the beginning of that game? I don't know. Not to mention there are probably more ex-WoW players in the world than there are brand new never-played-an-MMO gamers.
I.e. "you are to paranoid and exaggerating negative impact too much - in reality everything will be all right". Don't you think, that it's double standards? To "daydream about worst case scenarios" by themselves, when they don't want to do something and trying to beat this argument instead, when they need to do something?