The Blizzard Store and the Monthly Fee. What you need to realize.

[Flower Milk]

I was thinking exactly the same, total ilogical, people wants to pay more that's a new trend! come on we wants pay more! I can't believe we
reach this point when people are getting brainwashed per se? what's next? I don't know, not hard feelings about WoW i got my fun, but the people
... they always found a way to surprise the logical with ilogical arguments.

Yeah, nothing against WoW, it is just weird to see people who defend paying more money. Like, it's just something you don't really see... I think that is the weirdest part of this entire store item event to me. It kind of boggles the mind.

[Tydrane]

I think the biggest complaint about these newest additions is that these are items you can only have if you pay for it and that isn't fair.
Now while i personally don't care, if i want it i will pay for it, i do see the point of view of the people that may love one of those helmets but be unable to pay for it.
Blizzard should just up everyones sub by 50c and give away these items.

So, would you be sympathetic to me - a mount collector - if I said that Blizzard should let me have a 100% drop chance and Master Looter privileges for mounts that drop in LFR (something I don't participate in)? Or, should I be given my own personal method of obtaining the ridiculous and arbitrary PvP ranking required to get PvP mounts?

If you do, you're stupid. Those are unreasonable expectations. There are those of us who have come to terms with the fact that the balance between cost (in time) and the benefit (in desired content) is not weighed in our favour, so we won't get the things we want. Now, Blizzard's store has occasional sales on certain mounts and pets which makes it easier to obtain some of these items, which is a damn sight better than what those of us pining away for, say, the old Zul'Gurub Tiger will ever get. Microtransactions are a reality, and an increasingly popular method of delivering content for almost all video games these days.

Though, honestly, I could understand if people were complaining about new hats being added as DLC for Team Fortress 2. Couldn't give a fuck about that game, I just want my god-damn Half-Life 3.

- - - Updated - - -

I was thinking exactly the same, total ilogical, people wants to pay more that's a new trend! come on we wants pay more! I can't believe we
reach this point when people are getting brainwashed per se? what's next? I don't know, not hard feelings about WoW i got my fun, but the people
... they always found a way to surprise the logical with ilogical arguments.

Please, self-deetermined arbiter of logic, explain what is illogical about anyone asserting that a business broadening its income streams by offering a larger variety of content in exchange for real currency - thereby accomplishing the stated objective of every business ever - is illogical. Go ahead, I would love to see you try this one.

[Gren]

You're ignorant if you think it'll stop at purely cosmetic stuff. You'll be seeing different sort of buffs to ingame currencies soon enough. Be that honor, conquest, valor, justice, charms - you name it.

I unsubbed today, been playing since early 2006 - and this is where I get off. It's the principle and the lack of integrity on Blizzard's side - not the current content.

Nah, they will stick to strictly cosmetic/vanity items sold through that store.
Players are not going to see those type of in game currencies in the store, there are already far to many easy ways to acquire them in game.

[Duster505]

So, would you be sympathetic to me - a mount collector - if I said that Blizzard should let me have a 100% drop chance and Master Looter privileges for mounts that drop in LFR (something I don't participate in)? Or, should I be given my own personal method of obtaining the ridiculous and arbitrary PvP ranking required to get PvP mounts?

If you do, you're stupid. Those are unreasonable expectations. There are those of us who have come to terms with the fact that the balance between cost (in time) and the benefit (in desired content) is not weighed in our favour, so we won't get the things we want. Now, Blizzard's store has occasional sales on certain mounts and pets which makes it easier to obtain some of these items, which is a damn sight better than what those of us pining away for, say, the old Zul'Gurub Tiger will ever get. Microtransactions are a reality, and an increasingly popular method of delivering content for almost all video games these days.

Though, honestly, I could understand if people were complaining about new hats being added as DLC for Team Fortress 2. Couldn't give a fuck about that game, I just want my god-damn Half-Life 3.

No - Im not any more sympathetic to you as a mount collector to have exactly the same chance as everyone else to get a mount you need. But I am sympathetic to every mount collector that does not want to spend real life money on the mounts that are ONLY available through web store.

If you can not see the difference... then I can't help you.

Up until now EVERY subscription based game has been built around giving EVERY SUBSCRIBER the same chance. Everyone plays on equal grounds when it comes to drops for example. The only thing that is stopping you is your detication and skills. But you have SAME chance as all the others that are paying the exact same amount of money.

Here is the basic of it directly from BLizzard.

We chose to go with the subscription-based model instead of that approach. We've taken the approach that we want players to feel like it's a level playing field once they're in WoW. Outside resources don't play into it -- no gold buying, etc. We take a hard line stance against it. What you get out of microtransactions is kind of the same thing and I think our player base would feel betrayed by it. I think that's something else you have to decide on up-front instead of implementing later.

--Rob Pardo, Blizzard's Senior Vice President of Game Design (2/20/2008)

http://wow.joystiq.com/2008/02/20/gd...pproach-to-mm/

If Blizzard is adding new ways to gain MORE for extra money - Including 100% EXP boost and ways to gain lesser charms for real money... ppl that are paying more are getting more. And that means the basic principle of a subscription based game is no longer valid... and it should be removed.

If you are ready as a mount collector to spend 250-500$ in the next 3 years on ingame store mounts.... Then thats fine. Just dont expect those ppl that are paying subscription and have NO MEANS to get those items to not feel betrayed in a game that was built around having equal chance to gain ANY items in a subscription driven environment.

[oplawlz]

Please, self-deetermined arbiter of logic, explain what is illogical about anyone asserting that a business broadening its income streams by offering a larger variety of content in exchange for real currency - thereby accomplishing the stated objective of every business ever - is illogical. Go ahead, I would love to see you try this one.

Do you own stock in actibliz? Because otherwise you're rooting for the wrong team, bud. The Blizzard branch in particular is already making profits of epic proportions, they're not some struggling indie company just trying to eek by and keep their doors open. As a consumer, you should be thinking about how these decisions impact the consumer, and understand that the money is already there to funnel into development if the company chose to do so . . . the profits from this will in no way benefit the consumer. No value is being added to the game.

[Duster505]

Nah, they will stick to strictly cosmetic/vanity items sold through that store.
Players are not going to see those type of in game currencies in the store, there are already far to many easy ways to acquire them in game.

Even if its cosmetic - its still going to be pay to win. Like someone here explained. If you are mount collector you can not get certain mounts without paying extra. So any person that pays extra will always have advantage on gaining mounts over a person that isn't paying more. Thats pay to win. Pure and simple.

[DrSteveBrule]

Please, self-deetermined arbiter of logic, explain what is illogical about anyone asserting that a business broadening its income streams by offering a larger variety of content in exchange for real currency - thereby accomplishing the stated objective of every business ever - is illogical. Go ahead, I would love to see you try this one.

Because we already pay real currency for a large variety of content.

A Store mount or transmog gear might please what... 200K+ people? But if you add these things ingame to reward more gameplay i.e time spent in game and more reason to stay subscribed then that will benefit all 8 million and future WoW players.

You just might see players shut up about dailies if you added quality items added to them as rewards.

This is another accessibility issue. It wasn't OK for Blizzard to design Raids for few people, why is it OK for them to design quality items for few people wililng or able to shell out that extra cash?

The argument goes like this: they're using our subscription fees to make content exclusive for other people.

[The Stormbringer]

Why is it better to pay for something than an optional questline or dungeon reward INGAME? Tell me your logic as to why a cashshop isn't making the game worse.

They've already set the precedent that SOME of the things that look nice are going to be in the shop, be it mounts, pets, or what have you. At this point, it would be illogical for them not to continue down that path since they know it works and people will pay for it. I'm not saying I approve of this, but since it's already started, there's no going back. Just like some people think they'll get rid of flying in-game if they argue and plead enough.

[Duster505]

Please, self-deetermined arbiter of logic, explain what is illogical about anyone asserting that a business broadening its income streams by offering a larger variety of content in exchange for real currency - thereby accomplishing the stated objective of every business ever - is illogical. Go ahead, I would love to see you try this one.

Blizzard is totally free to change their business model. What they can not do is to think they can have two different business models for the same game and expect both to be a fair way for players to enjoy the game.

If they think they can bring in the very worst of F2P (ingame stores where ppl pay more to get more) and also have the very worst of sub based game (pay for just login into the game) they are welcome to try to bring that forward in a logical way. But thats just not possible. Cause that "logic" is filled with holes and is a direct betrayal (like Blizzard has pointed out) to the basics that WOW is built on.

[Tydrane]

No - Im not any more sympathetic to you as a mount collector to have exactly the same chance as everyone else to get a mount you need. But I am sympathetic to every mount collector that does not want to spend real life money on the mounts that are ONLY available through web store.

If you can not see the difference... then I can't help you.

Up until now EVERY subscription based game has been built around giving EVERY SUBSCRIBER the same chance. Everyone plays on equal grounds when it comes to drops for example. The only thing that is stopping you is your detication and skills. But you have SAME chance as all the others that are paying the exact same amount of money.

Here is the basic of it directly from BLizzard.


http://wow.joystiq.com/2008/02/20/gd...pproach-to-mm/

If Blizzard is adding new ways to gain MORE for extra money - Including 100% EXP boost and ways to gain lesser charms for real money... ppl that are paying more are getting more. And that means the basic principle of a subscription based game is no longer valid... and it should be removed.

If you are ready as a mount collector to spend 250-500$ in the next 3 years on ingame store mounts.... Then thats fine. Just dont expect those ppl that are paying subscription and have NO MEANS to get those items to not feel betrayed in a game that was built around having equal chance to gain ANY items in a subscription driven environment.

Bolded part is a non sequitur. The premise that simply because one has the opportunity to pay for additional cosmetic benefits, the subscription model is made redundant is fallacious and you have failed to support this assertion in any way. In fact, your presentation suggests that all the logical work has been done simply by making the assertion.

I don't care if people feel "betrayed" because they can't get certain mounts. They're idiots. They can get them, they're just not willing or able to pay the money for them, either because they're lazy, unsuccessful or they simply don't want it that much. What irritates me is people screaming that this is some kind of cosmic injustice. The reason I can't get certain mounts that, by your definition, I'm already paying for, is a combination of laziness, lack of time and not really wanting them that much.

Do you own stock in actibliz? Because otherwise you're rooting for the wrong team, bud. The Blizzard branch in particular is already making profits of epic proportions, they're not some struggling indie company just trying to eek by and keep their doors open. As a consumer, you should be thinking about how these decisions impact the consumer, and understand that the money is already there to funnel into development if the company chose to do so . . . the profits from this will in no way benefit the consumer. No value is being added to the game.

I don't need to be a stakeholder to recognise that it's good business. The additional revenue generated by the Blizzard Store more than counterbalances the number of people who claim they will quit over such a frivolous issue, which is itself mitigated by the fact that only a fraction of those claims are genuine, and more will undoubtedly come back at some point later.

As a consumer, my position is no different. Okay, so Blizzard is making "profits of epic proportions". I'm just pulling numbers out of my arse here to make a point, but say that without the Blizzard Store, they make $100m, and with it they make $150m. Assume that the vocal minority of MMO-Champion is right, that they're all greedy fatcats lining their pockets - if they're making an additional $50m in profits, there exists the chance for a greater portion of their revenue to be cycled back into development. Now, you or anyone else can say (on no basis in fact) that they won't do that because they're "greedy fatcats". You might be right, too, for all we know. The simple fact remains that greater profits offer greater possibilities to direct greater real figures into development of new content, for all of Blizzard's projects.

As an aside, I don't buy into the "Us Against Them" rhetoric in regards to business, I think it's toxic and the product of diseased minds jealous of the success of others, too incompetent and unmotivated to achieve success of their own.

Because we already pay real currency for a large variety of content.

A Store mount or transmog gear might please what... 200K+ people? But if you add these things ingame to reward more gameplay i.e time spent in game and more reason to stay subscribed then that will benefit all 8 million and future WoW players.

You just might see players shut up about dailies if you added quality items added to them as rewards.

This is another accessibility issue. It wasn't OK for Blizzard to design Raids for few people, why is it OK for them to design quality items for few people wililng or able to shell out that extra cash?

The argument goes like this: they're using our subscription fees to make content exclusive for other people.

Supposition, supposition, supposition. You may speak to me when you can provide real data on the (according to you) infinitesimally small proportion of players who purchase items from the Blizzard Store. Until then, your words are worthless.

Blizzard is totally free to change their business model. What they can not do is to think they can have two different business models for the same game and expect both to be a fair way for players to enjoy the game.

If they think they can bring in the very worst of F2P (ingame stores where ppl pay more to get more) and also have the very worst of sub based game (pay for just login into the game) they are welcome to try to bring that forward in a logical way. But thats just not possible. Cause that "logic" is filled with holes and is a direct betrayal (like Blizzard has pointed out) to the basics that WOW is built on.

I don't know why the likes of you continue to invoke logic when you seem to have absolutely no understanding of it, whatsoever. Logic has nothing to do with this, bar perhaps the wingnut response it has generated, such as the ludicrous "slippery slope" posts. You should have stopped after your first sentence, that was the last time you wrote anything correct.

[fangless]

The bright and intelligent posts are starting off early today.

So how do world first guilds raid in the first few weeks of new tiers? Raid gear is NOT mandatory. Many people raid without the best raid gear, like trials to raid guilds. Raid gear is helpful. And I think you should update your words so that they articulate what you really mean.

With raid gear? They come into the new tiers with BiS raid gear from last tier. At the start of an expansion, there is no raid gear to utilize, but whatever, your post is still just flat out silly.

[BobAwesome]

Sure is a lot of blizzard employees, trying make their cash shop look like a good thing, in this thread.

[Sansnom]

Every time Blizzard announces something new for the pet store we see the same threads come up about how a game with a monthly sub fee shouldn't have a microtransaction store. I get really frustrated when I see these posts because some people just don't get it.

You pay a monthly fee to be able to log in to your account and play; nothing more, nothing less.

Blizzard is a business and they have to do with that money whatever they feel will be most profitable. This can be anything from developing PvE and PvP content to developing items for the Blizzard store. The purpose of the former is to keep people subscribed to WoW and maybe even bring old people back/new people in. The latter is designed to bring in additional revenue to be able to develop more content.

Your points are correct. Up to a point. Blizzard releases content patches in between major Expansion Packs. These are available without any additional charge. As in also new gear set and new mounts from new raids. Most people assumes that these content patches are paid for from the subscription fees.

So when Blizzards releases new pets, mounts or whatever which requires a charge, one would then asks, who paid for these development cost initially? If it was from the subscription fees, then it is a bit cheap to charge for it a second time. If, on the other hand, it was not from the subscription fees, then of course there should be a charge.

We, the subscribers, does not know. And will never know.

[Tydrane]

Your points are correct. Up to a point. Blizzard releases content patches in between major Expansion Packs. These are available without any additional charge. As in also new gear set and new mounts from new raids. Most people assumes that these content patches are paid for from the subscription fees.

So when Blizzards releases new pets, mounts or whatever which requires a charge, one would then asks, who paid for these development cost initially? If it was from the subscription fees, then it is a bit cheap to charge for it a second time. If, on the other hand, it was not from the subscription fees, then of course there should be a charge.

We, the subscribers, does not know. And will never know.

You're describing funding as a pretty inflexible arrangement. The initial capital and resources may have come from revenue generated by subscriptions (it could have also equally come from revenue generated directly from the Blizzard Store), but the costs could be recouped from sale of the items. Any revenue generated after the development costs have been recovered can easily be cycled back into development for content that your subscription gives you access to - but you never hear people who purchase from the Blizzard Store complaining about subsidising content for those who don't make similar purchases, do you?

[Duster505]

Bolded part is a non sequitur. The premise that simply because one has the opportunity to pay for additional cosmetic benefits, the subscription model is made redundant is fallacious and you have failed to support this assertion in any way. In fact, your presentation suggests that all the logical work has been done simply by making the assertion.

I don't care if people feel "betrayed" because they can't get certain mounts. They're idiots. They can get them, they're just not willing or able to pay the money for them, either because they're lazy, unsuccessful or they simply don't want it that much. What irritates me is people screaming that this is some kind of cosmic injustice. The reason I can't get certain mounts that, by your definition, I'm already paying for, is a combination of laziness, lack of time and not really wanting them that much.


I don't need to be a stakeholder to recognise that it's good business. The additional revenue generated by the Blizzard Store more than counterbalances the number of people who claim they will quit over such a frivolous issue, which is itself mitigated by the fact that only a fraction of those claims are genuine, and more will undoubtedly come back at some point later.

As a consumer, my position is no different. Okay, so Blizzard is making "profits of epic proportions". I'm just pulling numbers out of my arse here to make a point, but say that without the Blizzard Store, they make $100m, and with it they make $150m. Assume that the vocal minority of MMO-Champion is right, that they're all greedy fatcats lining their pockets - if they're making an additional $50m in profits, there exists the chance for a greater portion of their revenue to be cycled back into development. Now, you or anyone else can say (on no basis in fact) that they won't do that because they're "greedy fatcats". You might be right, too, for all we know. The simple fact remains that greater profits offer greater possibilities to direct greater real figures into development of new content, for all of Blizzard's projects.

As an aside, I don't buy into the "Us Against Them" rhetoric in regards to business, I think it's toxic and the product of diseased minds jealous of the success of others, too incompetent and unmotivated to achieve success of their own.


Supposition, supposition, supposition. You may speak to me when you can provide real data on the (according to you) infinitesimally small proportion of players who purchase items from the Blizzard Store. Until then, your words are worthless.


I don't know why the likes of you continue to invoke logic when you seem to have absolutely no understanding of it, whatsoever. Logic has nothing to do with this, bar perhaps the wingnut response it has generated, such as the ludicrous "slippery slope" posts. You should have stopped after your first sentence, that was the last time you wrote anything correct.

The only person that has zero understanding on the basics of what WOW is built on is you Mr. And you best show that when you call ppl that are not willing to pay extra as lazy... And idiots. No they are not. That sort of logic just shows how far YOU are from reality if you think Blizzard can come out with statement like that.

Blizzard can not have it both ways. Thats just a fact. They can not both keep subscription and ingame cash shop. You might accept it.... but like I said... You dont get the logic of basic consumer rights. Blizzard WOULD be betraying players that have been paying for this game for years if they add the shop and still expect the same ppl to pay sub. Thats just a fact that not even you with your poor logic can not debate. Cause Blizzard said it THEMSELFS few years back. And thats just a fact they and you have to accept.

We chose to go with the subscription-based model instead of that approach. We've taken the approach that we want players to feel like it's a level playing field once they're in WoW. Outside resources don't play into it -- no gold buying, etc. We take a hard line stance against it. What you get out of microtransactions is kind of the same thing and I think our player base would feel betrayed by it. I think that's something else you have to decide on up-front instead of implementing later.

--Rob Pardo, Blizzard's Senior Vice President of Game Design (2/20/2008)

It was not ME that said ppl have the right to feel betrayed. It was the Senior Vice President of game design at BLizzard. So putting "betrayed" in "" just shows your lack of real logics instead of accepting the bloody obvious that Blizzard can not come back few years later after adding few mounts and pets and rip the core out of the game - and still think 8 million players are willing to pay subs like nothing happened. It doesn't work like that Mister.

[Marxman]

These cosmetic items aren't hurting anyone. It's more income for Blizzard, which in turn allows them to hire more developers and create more content. Win/Win.

If you're so petty that you would quit because Blizzard found a (VERY ACCEPTABLE) way to earn extra revenue, then I have no sympathy for you whatsoever. They're a business. At least this way no one is forced to pay anything they don't want to spend. If you don't like the cosmetic items, don't buy them.

[Grevie]

So, would you be sympathetic to me - a mount collector - if I said that Blizzard should let me have a 100% drop chance and Master Looter privileges for mounts that drop in LFR (something I don't participate in)? Or, should I be given my own personal method of obtaining the ridiculous and arbitrary PvP ranking required to get PvP mounts?

If you do, you're stupid. Those are unreasonable expectations. There are those of us who have come to terms with the fact that the balance between cost (in time) and the benefit (in desired content) is not weighed in our favour, so we won't get the things we want. Now, Blizzard's store has occasional sales on certain mounts and pets which makes it easier to obtain some of these items, which is a damn sight better than what those of us pining away for, say, the old Zul'Gurub Tiger will ever get. Microtransactions are a reality, and an increasingly popular method of delivering content for almost all video games these days.

Though, honestly, I could understand if people were complaining about new hats being added as DLC for Team Fortress 2. Couldn't give a fuck about that game, I just want my god-damn Half-Life 3.

- - - Updated - - -



Please, self-deetermined arbiter of logic, explain what is illogical about anyone asserting that a business broadening its income streams by offering a larger variety of content in exchange for real currency - thereby accomplishing the stated objective of every business ever - is illogical. Go ahead, I would love to see you try this one.

I can try, but i read your post.. it will be a waste, you think you re right about your statements, and a bit angry about people thinking diffrent than you, you even are challenging me about it, it will be a waste of time, with you trying to close every argument, we can argue hours, that's seems a waste of time , but yeah #paymore is the new trend, it seems ilogical for the consumers, get more things for
what you already pay make the money most valuable. IHMO.

[Pann]

These cosmetic items aren't hurting anyone. It's more income for Blizzard, which in turn allows them to hire more developers and create more content. Win/Win.

If you're so petty that you would quit because Blizzard found a (VERY ACCEPTABLE) way to earn extra revenue, then I have no sympathy for you whatsoever. They're a business. At least this way no one is forced to pay anything they don't want to spend. If you don't like the cosmetic items, don't buy them.

There is no evidence that any extra profit generated from the item shop will be spent creating more content. We have had an item store since Wrath yet Cata had a lot less content and MOP whilst better than Cata still has less zones that are smaller, less dungeons and although, some will disagree, I do not think the raids are as good as Ulduar or ICC.

[Jessicka]

Who said I was happy with TCG getting all the cool stuff?.

I figured since you'd stuck around for 5-6 years with TCG stuff and Rob Pardo making a blatantly hypocritical statement that you were cool with it.

[Crookids]

Every time Blizzard announces something new for the pet store we see the same threads come up about how a game with a monthly sub fee shouldn't have a microtransaction store. I get really frustrated when I see these posts because some people just don't get it.

You pay a monthly fee to be able to log in to your account and play; nothing more, nothing less.

Blizzard is a business and they have to do with that money whatever they feel will be most profitable. This can be anything from developing PvE and PvP content to developing items for the Blizzard store. The purpose of the former is to keep people subscribed to WoW and maybe even bring old people back/new people in. The latter is designed to bring in additional revenue to be able to develop more content.

The most important thing to realize is that Blizzard will NEVER make Tier Sets or any current content gear available for cash; they are not stupid enough to do that and you can mark my words that it'll never happen.

The Blizzard store is not a slippery slope, it is a smart business move to bring in more money for the company. The more resources Blizzard has, the more content they can develop and the better off we are as players.

Before preaching, perhaps you should research and post in one of the 10000 threads on the subject, especially since you complain about it yet entice the same responses in your very own created discussion.

Also, despite what your unobjectionable mentality suggests, and by your theory, we pay a subscription for content but they can create content we have to pay extra for? Doesn't make much sense does it? That's because you contradict yourself.

The notion is clear. The money used to create content is being used to create content we must pay AGAIN for. They are double charging you. It's pocket gauging and the silly defense "if you don't want it, don't buy it" is extremely lackluster. They have to justify charging extra with better quality, therefore anything above average WILL BE saved for the store.

It's appalling.