Game Time Token (POLL)

[procne]

and you really belive a token will be worth less then 100k, why?

That would be way above the current price of gold from gold sellers

You wish, but it wont. As they stated THEY that the price of the token you get so you still will be buying more gold for cash from goldsellers then from tokens.

For the reason above people would make way more gold from selling tokens instead of buying from goldsellers.

[Pua]

What content do you "not" get? A few mounts and xmog gear?

Correct. Mounts, pets, transmogrification gear and several other services like faction/server changes that my subscription should be buying me.

Thanks for explanation, but stop putting labels on people, it doesn't make you a better person

Yep, that's reasonable. My apologies for projecting that onto you, it wasn't fair.

Why should it?
You pay for acess to the server and nothing else

Because it’s my subscription that’s paying for the development of said content. Let me put it like this:

1) Your subscription doesn’t pay for expansions. Those are bought separately.
2) Your subscription pays for more than just server access, because server access is laughably cheap.

What that means, is that your subscription is paying for content development that you, as a subscriber, are directly paying for. When you don’t get it, and are asked to fork out for it in a cash shop, you’re actually paying twice.

Some people are daft enough to argue that “it’s a choice”, forgetting that they should be getting content they paid for via their subscription as part of that subscription.

It’s really simple.

[Wondercrab]

It's a good implementation. I was a bit put off for a moment when they mentioned they might be making changes to BMAH and raid BoEs (likely so that people can't spend real money to essentially buy items that increase their power), but even then the positives still far outweigh the negatives.

[procne]

Correct. Mounts, pets, transmogrification gear and several other services like faction/server changes that my subscription should be buying me.

Sorry, but I think that's only YOUR opinion. I can't see why Blizzard shouldn't offer any other services for additional payment.
Can you make some objective argument explaining this bolded "should", one that wouldn't be based on your own preferences?

[Schmilblick]

It's a good implementation. I was a bit put off for a moment when they mentioned they might be making changes to BMAH and raid BoEs (likely so that people can't spend real money to essentially buy items that increase their power), but even then the positives still far outweigh the negatives.

Agree on this.

[Pua]

Sorry, but I think that's only YOUR opinion. I can't see why Blizzard shouldn't offer any other services for additional payment.
Can you make some objective argument explaining this bolded "should", one that wouldn't be based on your own preferences?

No, it's not an opinion.

Your subscription fee buys you content. This is a fact. It's a fact, because you have to buy individual boxes (the game and expansions), and solely access to the servers would make the subscription look more like £1 rather than the £10 that it is. So there's roughly £9 there that's supposed to be buying you content updates.

With me so far?

There are several different models for online video games, including MMORPGs, to get them funded for future development.

These include:

1) Free to play.

The game is free to download, and you play the game in a limited state. Cash shops and microtransactions are how the game is financed.

2) Buy to play.

The game needs to be purchased before you can download and play, and the game is financed on the back of box (plus expansion) sales.

3) Subscription.

These games are financed via a monthly subscription paid by players, which guarantees a set price for access to all of the game content.

Now, for those missing the point, Blizzard is currently doing all three of these. They're using cash shops and microtransactions (with an in-game menu), they're asking for payment for all boxes (recently hiked in Warlords of Draenor), and they're asking for a subscription fee (recently hiked in the EU). This, also, is a fact. The reason cash shops are acceptable in free to play games is because that's the only source of finance. Similarly, buy to play relies on box sales in order to finance the game (though many have microtransactions). Subscriptions need neither of these things, because a player will cough up £120 a year on average for development.

Now, if we take the much-vaunted 10 million players who were subscribed for the launch of Warlords of Draenor, that's £100,000,000 in a single calendar month. That is an obscene amount of money, and Blizzard probably puts the tiniest fraction of that sum into monthly development and support.

My point?

Subscriptions already pay for the development of the game. Fact. They also pay for the development of store content. Fact.

Therefore, you've already paid for the development of the store content and should be getting it by virtue of your subscription.

Fact.

The only way you can dispute this, is if you think Blizzard puts more than £100,000,000 worth of content into the game every month and needs the additional revenue for shop content.

Anyone choosing to argue that's what's happening, is probably going to be laughed at. I might be kind and count up the box sale revenue for you, but you're still going to make me chuckle and shake my head at how unbelievably, and irreconcilably, gullible you really are.

In fact, here.

Have a new avatar:

[procne]

The only way you can dispute this, is if you think Blizzard puts more than £100,000,000 worth of content into the game every month and needs the additional revenue for shop content.

What exactly is this fact you keep mentioning? That fee buys me content? Ok, and? That doesn't automatically mean there shouldn't be any extra paid services. I don't understand why what you say is so obvious to you.

I have always followed the "everything's worth what its purchaser is willing to pay for it" rule. If blizzard doesn't offer those extra services and goodies in base subscription and people still subscribe and play then it means to me that it's worth it for them. Just because access to the servers costs much less for blizzard than this 15$ / month doesn't mean the price should automatically be reduced. If you live in capitalist country then you should know that almost all companies adjust their prices to maximise their profits. If people are willing to pay more then there is no point in keeping prices low.

edit: just to reiterate - you, as customer, decide how much a product is worth to you. Arguments like "it costs you only X therefore I should get X and Z for free" are silly to me - it's not like you can haggle here. Either you buy or not. Especially that it's not like blizzard cuts out the content that used to be available to you in your subscription and starts charging extra for it.

Therefore arguments like "access to the servers costs only £1 so the remaining £9 should be buying content updates" are invalid to me. It's blizzard deciding what they offer and how much they charge for it. You can decide whether it's worth it for you and either buy or not. They don't need to justify the shop items with "we need extra money to make content". They just see the occasion to make extra cash and that's what they do.

You may call me gullible for not demanding that blizzard hands us everything for free just because we pay 15$ a month (wonder which one of us keeps paying this 15$ though, because I don't). But quit being offensive smartass. It's unnecesary and doesn't make your arguments stronger. Neither is funny

[Lochton]

Subscriptions already pay for the development of the game. Fact. They also pay for the development of store content. Fact.

Therefore, you've already paid for the development of the store content and should be getting it by virtue of your subscription.

I feel an urgent need to comment on this for it is the wrong mentality. "Fact" you pay for Blizzard's coffee, you want a mug with that? "Fact" you pay for all the milk, meat and other farm products but you cannot claim that for free either.

Just because you pay for it doesn't mean you can expect what the outcome is to be yours as well, that is the basic of entitlement.

"Fact" you pay fort he salary of the D3 team as well as the SC2 team and more, yet you can't stand up and demand all that for free either.

Your subscription is your access, support and update of content primary.

Even at that, some of the product on the store is created by designers who's doing the 'switch', basicly a way to avoid going dead in your job, sit down and just brainstorm. Out of that brainstorm, an idea comes and maybe worth to be looked in to.

What I am trying to say is, just because you pay for the labor doesn't mean you can expect the fruit to be yours. You don't claim other companies should give you their stuff for free just because you purchased one item, do you?

[procne]

Nobody pays for labor here. Players pay for a game - a product and a service. Of course it also comes with a unwritten promise of content updates. But nowhere it says that this subscription guarantees access to all additional services (current and future ones) related to this product without additional fees. We may discuss whether it's ok and whether we like it not. But stating as a fact that developer should do this and this is pointless.

[CataclismicSunrise]

...What if: The goldsellers by tokens, sell the tokens, then sell the gold made from the tokens back to the players who use it to buy game tokens?

[rda]

...What if: The goldsellers by tokens, sell the tokens, then sell the gold made from the tokens back to the players who use it to buy game tokens?

That's a lousy way to do business. :-)

A better way: generate gold from bots, sell it to players who will use it to buy tokens.

[procne]

...What if: The goldsellers by tokens, sell the tokens, then sell the gold made from the tokens back to the players who use it to buy game tokens?

To make profit they would have to sell the gold at prices higher than the token.

And players would have a choice - either buy the token for real money from blizzard, or buy the gold for more real money from goldsellers through a potentialy risky transaction. How many customers would gold sellers have?

[Ballrug]

To make profit they would have to sell the gold at prices higher than the token.

You can't resell tokens. This has already been thought of/taken care of.

[FuxieDK]

How does that make any difference, then you have trade spam, undercutting, value complexity, and it does nothing to gold selling, since the other guy can still buy his gold from gold sellers to pay you if it is cheaper than your price.

It makes a HUGE difference in income for Blizz..
Example 1: You buy 1 months for gold and I buy 1 months for €12,99.. Total income: €12,99
Example 2: I buy 2 months for €12,99 each and sell I sell 1 month to you for X gold: Total income: €25,98

[procne]

You can't resell tokens. This has already been thought of/taken care of.

The point of this whole change is that you can. Didn't you read it? You can resell tokens on AH. Once.

It makes a HUGE difference in income for Blizz..
Example 1: You buy 1 months for gold and I buy 1 months for €12,99.. Total income: €12,99
Example 2: I buy 2 months for €12,99 each and sell I sell 1 month to you for X gold: Total income: €25,98

Actually, I have no idea what your point is now. Blizzard is not selling gametime for gold. Tokens have to be bought for real money first and will be more expensive than subscription

[Amerissis]

It makes a HUGE difference in income for Blizz..
Example 1: You buy 1 months for gold and I buy 1 months for €12,99.. Total income: €12,99
Example 2: I buy 2 months for €12,99 each and sell I sell 1 month to you for X gold: Total income: €25,98

Uhm, someone else spend 12,99 (or likely more) on the 1 month you buy for gold. Total income: €25,98.

- - - Updated - - -

The point of this whole change is that you can. Didn't you read it? You can resell tokens on AH. Once.

That's not reselling, that is selling. Reselling is when you can buy that token for gold and then sell it again, for gold. That's impossible. You can only buy it for money and sell it for gold.

[procne]

That's not reselling, that is selling. Reselling is when you can buy that token for gold and then sell it again, for gold. That's impossible. You can only buy it for money and sell it for gold.

That's one way to look at it. Other is that you buy the token for real money and then sell it, for gold. The currency changes but still you sell something that you have bought. You bought to sell again, so reselling. In any case, "reselling" is a word used by Ballru and in my post quoted by Ballrug I was talking about selling tokens for gold, which have been bought by money. Which is possible

[Pua]

What exactly is this fact you keep mentioning?

That your subscription fee easily pays for the entire range of services and products provided for World of Warcraft. Do you want to argue with that?

I thought not.

That fee buys me content? Ok, and? That doesn't automatically mean there shouldn't be any extra paid services. I don't understand why what you say is so obvious to you.

Because I’m old enough to remember when games were made to be fun, not profitable. Prior to studios selling out so that the likes of Kotick and Wilson could make shareholders extremely wealthy, what mattered to people who made games was that people loved them; not that they paid through the nose for them.

What’s also obvious, is that if Blizzard make £100,000,000 a month from World of Warcraft via subscriptions alone, and that a fraction of that finds its way back into the game, the rest is pure profit that you are not getting anything for. Nothing. Nada. If you then want to add in microtransactions and the shop (which were exclusively designed to fund games without a subscription, by the way), then all you’re doing is lining shareholder pockets even more.

I have always followed the "everything's worth what its purchaser is willing to pay for it" rule. If blizzard doesn't offer those extra services and goodies in base subscription and people still subscribe and play then it means to me that it's worth it for them.

I’m a fan of ethical business. Blizzard, as a design studio, is (in my opinion) a producer of art. Like any producer of art, as soon as they start doing what they do for money rather than for honest expression, they’re selling out and I find it distasteful. Now, clearly, nobody is arguing that Blizzard should make games without profit – I don’t think anyone should. But they used to be motivated by making World of Warcraft great. Now, they just want it to be profitable.

Let me put it like this.

Warlords dropped in November, so we’ve had roughly four months of it. That’s £400,000,000 in subscription money alone. If we assumed, and I’m being conservative, that half of the playerbase has bought the expansion, then we can top that up with 5,000,000 boxes at £40 each for a total of £200,000,000. Add that together, and we’re at £600,000,000 or, if you prefer, $921,240,000.

Blizzard have made a billion dollars from WoD alone.

It’s already wildly profitable and I’d imagine, though I don’t know, is the most financially successful game in history. Arguing that “microtransactions are worth what you pay for them” is missing the point, because there’s absolutely no reason for Blizzard to be asking for more money for them. If the game had a non-subscribed mode, then I’d see the point, but not when everyone is already paying for the content.

If you live in capitalist country then you should know that almost all companies adjust their prices to maximise their profits.

I’m not a capitalist.

Especially that it's not like blizzard cuts out the content that used to be available to you in your subscription and starts charging extra for it.

Haha, that made me laugh. The current expansion is the weakest on content they’ve ever launched, and they charged more for it.

They just see the occasion to make extra cash and that's what they do.

In a nutshell, that’s the problem. That’s why I say they’re “nickel and diming” their players. Good to see you agree with me, and they’re doing it for money rather than to offer “choice” or because they’re thinking of their players.

They’re not.

Just because you pay for it doesn't mean you can expect what the outcome is to be yours as well, that is the basic of entitlement.

Yes, I am absolutely entitled to get what I’m paying for. If you don’t believe that, then I’ve provided you a new avatar in the post you’ve quoted.

It makes a HUGE difference in income for Blizz..
Example 1: You buy 1 months for gold and I buy 1 months for €12,99.. Total income: €12,99
Example 2: I buy 2 months for €12,99 each and sell I sell 1 month to you for X gold: Total income: €25,98

What?

It’s more likely that Blizzard will charge more for the token so that a “subscription” costs more than it does at baseline. Don’t get me wrong, I can never support pay to win (particularly in a game where Rob Pardo promised it would never happen), but this plan is absolutely being designed to make Blizzard more money rather than a better game.

[procne]

Because I’m old enough to remember when games were made to be fun, not profitable. Prior to studios selling out so that the likes of Kotick and Wilson could make shareholders extremely wealthy, what mattered to people who made games was that people loved them; not that they paid through the nose for them.

When was that exactly? I think it only happened with garage-made games in early 90s.

What’s also obvious, is that if Blizzard make £100,000,000 a month from World of Warcraft via subscriptions alone, and that a fraction of that finds its way back into the game, the rest is pure profit that you are not getting anything for. Nothing. Nada. If you then want to add in microtransactions and the shop (which were exclusively designed to fund games without a subscription, by the way), then all you’re doing is lining shareholder pockets even more.

I don't think it's that obvious. You can only speculate but you don't have real numbers on their incomes and costs. Also, why should we be getting anything out of it. Players decided the new expansion is worth the cost so they bought it. They decided that a month in the game is worth this 15$ so they bought it. If they pay with the idea that the money will be used to improve the game then they are cheating themselves. You pay for access to the game here and now. If you find it fun enough. Lining shareholder pockets and paying way above the real production costs? Is this really such a problem? It's not food or electricity which you need to live. It's entertainment. Every company will adjust the prices to maximize the profits, which means they will put it as high as people are willing to pay for it. If you are not willing to pay that much then don't. You can boycott with your wallet. But demonizing the company is pointless.

I’m a fan of ethical business. Blizzard, as a design studio, is (in my opinion) a producer of art. Like any producer of art, as soon as they start doing what they do for money rather than for honest expression, they’re selling out and I find it distasteful. Now, clearly, nobody is arguing that Blizzard should make games without profit – I don’t think anyone should. But they used to be motivated by making World of Warcraft great. Now, they just want it to be profitable.

I would rarely put "art" together with a gaming company. For me blizzard has always been a standard company aimed at making profits. But one that did it by releasing quality products, instead of cheap crap.

It’s already wildly profitable and I’d imagine, though I don’t know, is the most financially successful game in history. Arguing that “microtransactions are worth what you pay for them” is missing the point, because there’s absolutely no reason for Blizzard to be asking for more money for them. If the game had a non-subscribed mode, then I’d see the point, but not when everyone is already paying for the content.

They don't need a reason to ask for money. They are selling a product. This is the only point - making profit. That's their business model. And I don't really see anything bad with it. Until they start cheating, lying and provide subpar quality product. You say WoD is the weakest expansion so far. Could be, and that would be a legitimate complaint. I cannot relate to that however since I haven't bought it.

In a nutshell, that’s the problem. That’s why I say they’re “nickel and diming” their players. Good to see you agree with me, and they’re doing it for money rather than to offer “choice” or because they’re thinking of their players. They're not

I think everyone agrees with that. Is there anyone out there who really believes that companies "think about their clients and making them happy is their ultimate goal"? That's total bullcrap. Whenever any company representative says that they lie. Company is supposed to make profits. Of course that doesn't mean they don't give a crap about customers. They do - they want their customers to be happy, but only so that the customer keeps buying the products. Customer happiness is only the mean to reach the true goal - profit.

Yes, I am absolutely entitled to get what I’m paying for. If you don’t believe that, then I’ve provided you a new avatar in the post you’ve quoted.

And I think you mistook what you are entitled to with your own expectations. You have decided on your own that because you pay X, and the costs are Y then X-Y should go into development, which is not how it works. In fact you are cheating yourself and the avatar suits you more than me. It should be: you pay X cause what you get (that is access to the servers, game quality and customer support) seems worth it. Blizzard tries to keep Y as low as possible to maximize profits. X should not be determined solely by Y, as you try to state, but by how much the quality is worth it to the customers. (that's also why prices are different in other regions). Should GTA 5 (insert another very succesful game / movie here) makers reduce the price of the game simply because they sold so many copies that their costs were covered easily and made a huge profit?

edit: Or, if you are so inclined to treat games as art, should the price of a piece of art be determined only by the cost of creation?

[LeBaller]

Shouldn't affect the game honestly, just another way to legally buy gold since pets don't work