Will there be any pro-store-mount players on the Community Council?

[Raelbo]

Right, because the players carrying you instead of Blizzard makes it TOTALLY different.

Who said anything about Blizzard carrying you? What I said is that if WoW was p2w then you would be doing the carrying, not the other way round.

It's like, if you kill someone, you're guilty. But if you give someone else a gun, and tell them to kill someone else, that's perfectly fine.

Shitty analogy. We're not talking about committing a crime here, we're talking about participation in a competitive activity.

It's like paying to be given a spot in a top football team. Sure, your team might win the league, but no one will remember you as one of the football greats.

When are people going to understand that tacitly supporting boosting and selling in game currency for real life cash leads to the same end result as games that just sell easy wins in otherwise hard content.

It's not the same end result though. Sure, there are some similarities, which is why people like you choose to try and argue, but there are also fundamental and critical differences that people like you conveniently ignore.

You may argue that anyone can use money to buy tokens and get boosted through hard content and in so doing get the best gear in the game. And I totally accept that argument. But here is what you conspicuously choose to leave out:

1) Boostees get their gear long after the boosters. They are always behind the curve.
2) Even with that awesome gear, a player who needed to be carried still cannot compete on the same level as the boosters.

Lastly, WoW an MMORPG. The M I highlighted indicates Multi-Player. Players helping other players is part and parcel of the MMO experience. How and why some players choose to help other players is, frankly, none of your business. And while I can completely get, and even agree that doing so for money can be somewhat distasteful (depending on exactly what is being done), it is still completely legitimate.

Again, as Josh Strife Hayes put it, "If I can pay real life money to skip or make content easier in a game that I would otherwise have to spend more time on, it's pay to win."

Josh Strife Hayes is an interesting fellow who makes a lot of good points. I believe the video you're quoting him on is this one. Even if it isn't, it's a great, insightful watch. Pretty much the only thing I disagree with him on is his choice to define what he's talking about as "pay to win". Near the end he mentions: "pay to win", "pay for advantage", "pay for convenience" as three terms that he is conflating into his definition of "pay to win". The funny thing of course is that because he is so liberal with his definition, he is able to put together an excellent argument of why "pay to win" is actually a good thing. Of those three terms, WoW offers "pay for convenience". As such it gives us players all the benefits mentioned in his video:

1) Allows you to choose between spending more time in the game or spending money
2) Allows players with busy lives to catch up with friends if they are unable to devote enough time to the game
3) People who pay for shop items help the rest of us to enjoy a game which cost more to make than what our subscriptions alone can justify.

Furthermore, because WoW is actually pay for convenience rather than pay to win, it lacks the serious problems associated with games meeting the more traditional definition of pay to win:
1) Doing well in WoW isn't about how much money you spend.
2) No one is WoW is forced to spend money if they want to be competitive/participate in high end content/obtain great rewards.

In short, if you're going to accept Josh's definition of pay to win, then you really have no reason to see pay to win in WoW as a bad thing. If anything it's overwhelmingly positive.

Besides, if you're going to go with his definition then WoW has always been pay to win simply by virtue of being an MMO, because you have always been able to enlist the aid of players using money. The idea that any game environment can be entirely egalitarian and that our money in real life doesn't affect how well we can do in game is, frankly, absurd. People with money are always going to have an advantage, period. And I am not even talking about paying people directly to give you gold or a boost. Just a few examples:

• People with lots of money can buy fancier hardware that will help them to play better.
• You can sponsor other people to play the game, and then those other people help you out in return.

In my case, when my kids were younger and they thought WoW was awesome (now they just spend all their time watching tiktok, sigh), they were quite happy to spend hours fishing in the garrison for coins. Since they are my financial dependents, I effectively paid money to save time. If you want to tell me that's pay to win, then I will tell you outright that you are being absurd.

I don't like cash shop, but I'm much happier knowing that the revenue is going towards game improvement, rather than into Bobby Kotick's yearly bonus.

There is absolutely no way that shop revenue is not contributing to the continued development cost of the game.

And before you choose to go with your impulse to disagree with that statement, consider this: If WoW got rid of its cash shop entirely, what do think would be more likely?:

• Bobby's yearly bonus would takes equal knock?
• He'll protect his bonus (as much as he can) by cutting costs on WoW's development budget?

I am not going to argue that Bobby isn't benefiting financially from the shop, but rather that he isn't the sole beneficiary. The game almost certainly owes a significant portion of its current development budget to the shop as well.

[Lolites]

There is absolutely no way that shop revenue is not contributing to the continued development cost of the game.

and on the other hand, there is absolutely no way some of revenue from FF cash shop doesnt go to some overpaid manager, most likely not as much overpaid as Bobby, but its not like people would run company for free, not even charities have "pro bono" managers...

[Fenrys]

I am not really convinced that even now blizzard honestly wants feedback from their players. I always had the impression that the devs berating players for showing them the flaws in their mechanics was more a case of them desperately wanting ass pats.

I expect the community to come off the same way as most blizz-con wow question and answer panels do with devs saying smarmy and half assed statements to the most mild of concerns while talking about how great a job they did. I know after a while I stopped providing feedback and simply used the alpha/beta for practice then offer any real info on problems I saw.

I suspect they are probably mixed on player feedback too, but that's largely because 95% of it is certifiably insane. A quick scan of r/wow is probably the strongest argument against Blizzard listening to the community.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not that the store exists ... its the reason why it exists.

Unique mounts and pets - skinner boxing people into buying more and more, for obscene prices.

The huge amount of money they are clearly making off tokens and mounts etc should offset prices for services like transfers, guild transfers, etc.

Blizzards bottom line here is to make as much money as possible, the store allows them to just be lazy elsewhere. Subs go down (which is a negative if you are a player that enjoys a large community) while they keep introducing store mounts, or bundles to get you to buy a HS pack that comes with WoW stuff something. If they were using the money they got from the store to actually improve the game, we probably wouldn't have to make the same old "that'll cost you a raid tier" jokes every patch/year. Oh yeah, and lets not forget the massive amount of cancelled content.

So no, I don't care about store mounts, I care about what it means to have a store.

Why should it offset the other services aside from the fact that you'd like it? Outside of conspiracy theories I can't see a single way in which the existence of the cash shop has substantially influenced game design. The cash shop exists because (outside of cosmetics and we've established cosmetics don't matter) those services were already available and Blizzard reasonably thought that if someone was going to make money, it may as well be them.

If anything, game design has gone contrary to what would best support the cash shop. Boosts would sell better if levelling was harder and longer, but its got easier. Transfers would sell better for the same reason. If the cosmetics mattered (e.g because mounts were still challenging to acquire) the cosmetic mounts would sell better. Gold is easy to acquire just by playing the game, and in any case the price of a token is market driven. The statement that the store allows them to be lazy elsewhere is completely unsubstantiated. Do you honestly believe that Blizzard decide "ah fuck it, we'll slack on these systems/content, a store mount or 6 month sub mount will bring them back"? That's... not a reasonable hill to die on.

[Raelbo]

The statement that the store allows them to be lazy elsewhere is completely unsubstantiated.

This 100%

The shop serves people who play the game. The more people are playing and enjoying the game, the more stuff will be sold on the shop. It's that simple.

And just to illustrate the point: The other day we're waiting to pull the first raid boss and one of our raiders hops onto this adorable kitty mount. Discord is filled with oohs and aahs and squeals. Next raid night, half the raid is riding one. All those sales happened because a bunch of friends are having fun playing engaging content in a game that we all love. Blizzard knows and understands this. If I was a manager at Blizzard and I heard someone on the team joking that it doesn't matter if they're lazy because the stupid players will just buy the next mount we put on the shop, that person would be fired on the spot.

Oh and before some of you smart asses out there chime in with "well if that were true, why is the game in such a shit state?", my answer is simple: However bad you think the state of the game is now, it would be a lot worse if there was no shop.

[Log Cabin]

This 100%

The shop serves people who play the game. The more people are playing and enjoying the game, the more stuff will be sold on the shop. It's that simple.

And just to illustrate the point: The other day we're waiting to pull the first raid boss and one of our raiders hops onto this adorable kitty mount. Discord is filled with oohs and aahs and squeals. Next raid night, half the raid is riding one. All those sales happened because a bunch of friends are having fun playing engaging content in a game that we all love. Blizzard knows and understands this. If I was a manager at Blizzard and I heard someone on the team joking that it doesn't matter if they're lazy because the stupid players will just buy the next mount we put on the shop, that person would be fired on the spot.

Oh and before some of you smart asses out there chime in with "well if that were true, why is the game in such a shit state?", my answer is simple: However bad you think the state of the game is now, it would be a lot worse if there was no shop.

It is taking sub money to make higher quality mounts then is available in the rest of the game for them to triple on profits. They are actively making dlc into a subscription service...

It is clearly a negative thing to have in the game. It is alright if you are alright with it. That won't lessen what it is though.

[Fenrys]

It is taking sub money to make higher quality mounts then is available in the rest of the game for them to triple on profits. They are actively making dlc into a subscription service...

It is clearly a negative thing to have in the game. It is alright if you are alright with it. That won't lessen what it is though.

Could you please clarify this? As it is written it doesn't make any sense. You still haven't been able to demonstrate any negative effect on the rest of the game.

[Eosia]

I agree with what you are saying here, but people from the PTR post here too, and they seem to say they feel ignored as well, about BUGS even. If Blizzard is ignoring PTR players about bugs .. I just can't see them taking much constructive criticism from this council seriously either.

Bugs are a different animal though. Blizzard could have many reasons why they would not publicly acknowledge a bug. Especially if an exploit is in play.

The other thing is people ALWAYS forget that Blizzard follow Semantic Versioning. This is why Patch 6.1 was still a legitimate patch even though there was no real content to it. It just so happens that, traditionally, Blizzard has included new content in the x.y patches. But they will not make grand systemic changes in those patches either.

Like we can all agree Azerite did not pan out the way they wanted it to. It was designed to replace tier sets because we players didn't like how the 2pc ones get nerfed at the next x.y patch and other such things. They tried to address their design issues and the criticisms of the tier sets in Legion with the Azerite traits. Problem was people expected them to completely re-write the system or replace it with something else in 8.1 patch... that's was never going to happen until Patch 9.0 because it is at x.0 you make those kinds of changes.

Did they ignore feedback then? Yeah, because it was unrealistic. And the "community" was not receptive to hearing that either.

[Beefhammer]

I mean opposed to the apathetic players, who are simply unbothered by it and think the anti-store players are whiners.

You do realize this portion of the playerbase is the majority, and probably bu a significant margin? As said many times before, most players don't get caught up in this BS. They just play the game, have fun, and don't care.

- - - Updated - - -

Did they ignore feedback then? Yeah, because it was unrealistic. And the "community" was not receptive to hearing that either.

This so much. Like with many of the expansion wide systems players don't like or want changed, it's just unrealistic something core to the expansion will be dumped or changed heavily before or during launch. Bugs, balance, and maybe how some smaller things work sure.

But then there are other factors players ignore like their feedback being against the philosophy of the dev team. It might take too many resources to do during a patch cycle so it has to happen with an expansion. They tried the suggestion and didn't like how it worked or couldn't get it to work. Maybe the devs just don't like the suggestion.

There was a really good dev blog that laid out this feedback and devs not listening to it stuff. I wish I could remember what it was. But there are legitimate reasons feedback isn't implemented. Players just don't want to hear any of it and want to whine about being not listened to. Which again, not implementing feedback doesn't mean the deva aren't listening.

[Raelbo]

It is taking sub money to make higher quality mounts then is available in the rest of the game for them to triple on profits.

That makes absolutely no sense. Think about this: If they are taking sub money to make those mounts, there is no way they would bother. As you yourself say, those mounts are incredibly profitable. Not only do those mounts pay their own development costs, they generate a lot of excess revenue. More revenue means more money available for the development budget, not less.

I honestly cannot understand the kind of mental gymnastics you guys are having to perform in order to validate this idea you have that shop mounts would result in less money going into the development budget.

They are actively making dlc into a subscription service

And? It's like you see this and automatically assume that's a bad thing for some nebulous reason.

Let's put it this way: Would you rather they increased your monthly subscription for you to get exactly what you're getting today or let those who are happy to pay a bit extra do so in return for an extra mount? And let me be clear: In neither case are you getting that shiny mount.

It is clearly a negative thing to have in the game.

No it is not. Consider what I have said above, recognise the massive flaws in your logic, and try to realise that shop mounts are actually a good thing for everyone. The problem here is you're just misguided because you've chosen to the wrong people - and now you've become part of the problem.

[Chipped coin]

Could you please clarify this? As it is written it doesn't make any sense. You still haven't been able to demonstrate any negative effect on the rest of the game.

Seems clear to me... no in game mount has the detail of the latest cashshop mount. They have a vested interest in ensuring no content rivials it to help push sales.

[tikcol]

What's up with all this pathetic power tripping around such an inconsequential thing?

[Chipped coin]

That makes absolutely no sense. Think about this: If they are taking sub money to make those mounts, there is no way they would bother. As you yourself say, those mounts are incredibly profitable. Not only do those mounts pay their own development costs, they generate a lot of excess revenue. More revenue means more money available for the development budget, not less.

I honestly cannot understand the kind of mental gymnastics you guys are having to perform in order to validate this idea you have that shop mounts would result in less money going into the development budget.



And? It's like you see this and automatically assume that's a bad thing for some nebulous reason.

Let's put it this way: Would you rather they increased your monthly subscription for you to get exactly what you're getting today or let those who are happy to pay a bit extra do so in return for an extra mount? And let me be clear: In neither case are you getting that shiny mount.



No it is not. Consider what I have said above, recognise the massive flaws in your logic, and try to realise that shop mounts are actually a good thing for everyone. The problem here is you're just misguided because you've chosen to the wrong people - and now you've become part of the problem.

Every point you made though relies on wishful thinking... prove that the cash shop funds the game. Show me the multiple dungeons we get each patch, the raid tiers and the battle grounds. There is of course diminishing returns but you get teams solely making that content.

If they raised the sub they would likely lose money at this point... I don't think people are clinging onto wow that hard right now. You have such a naive view of the world it kinda makes me feel bad to pick at it.

- - - Updated - - -

What's up with all this pathetic power tripping around such an inconsequential thing?

Have you just turned on the internet? Our entire culture is built on arm chair activism and empty gestures.

[Relapses]

Seems clear to me... no in game mount has the detail of the latest cashshop mount. They have a vested interest in ensuring no content rivials it to help push sales.

The tree mount that literally everybody got has four individual models and is one of the most detailed mounts they've ever added to the game. Your claim is demonstrably false and easily disproven. You're framing an incomplete argument to support a foregone conclusion that basically excuses your very typical, very boring cynicism. ("In game shop = exists; therefore, everything on it = bad for the game.")

[Chipped coin]

The tree mount that literally everybody got has four individual models and is one of the most detailed mounts they've ever added to the game. Your claim is demonstrably false and easily disproven. You're framing an incomplete argument to support a foregone conclusion that basically excuses your very typical, very boring cynicism. ("In game shop = exists; therefore, everything on it = bad for the game.")

So... one promotional mount disproves a half decade now?

[Fenrys]

Seems clear to me... no in game mount has the detail of the latest cashshop mount. They have a vested interest in ensuring no content rivials it to help push sales.

There is self-evident disconnect between the propositions. They are taking resources and making a profit on them - so? That applies to literally any part of the game. The point you make is unconnected and different, but equally invalid. There is nothing to suggest that if the cash-shop didn't exist the mounts we get in game would be better.

They make design decisions based on profit. The cash-shop mounts are worth putting more resources into because they bring in more money than your average run of the mill mount. They therefore acquire resource to capitalise on that market. That's fine. It does not suggest that those resources would be put into the game if the cash-shop didn't exist. Presumably the same profit calculus would still apply to the core game.

[Relapses]

So... one promotional mount disproves a half decade now?

I'm not going to bother engaging in a subjective feud over which mounts on the store are inferior/superior to the ones produced for the game itself. Personally, I feel like there have been more than enough decent in-game obtainable mounts to offset those in the shop. You're free to disagree but there's no universal standard by which to judge the quality of mounts so this is a bit of a moot point.

The argument that they're incentivized to create intentionally worse mounts in-game to make the store mounts more attractive, however, is so far into conspiracy theory land that it's barely worth engaging with.

[Vampyrr]

What do you think? Is there anyone playing the game who legitimately had the opinion of "this game **should** have $25 mounts every now and then that sometimes get removed from the store for manufactured FOMO"?

I mean opposed to the apathetic players, who are simply unbothered by it and think the anti-store players are whiners.

What would a pro-store-mount thread even look like?

Because the only way I can see this going is a well thought out anti-store post with a bunch of "sense of pride and accomplishment" replies from Blizzard devs.

I'm fine with mounts and pets getting added every once in awhile I do not think ANYTHING should be removed from the store ever. Using FOMO for sales is a shitty tactic. Also maybe a price drop to like 15 for mounts 5 for pets.

[Chipped coin]

There is self-evident disconnect between the propositions. They are taking resources and making a profit on them - so? That applies to literally any part of the game. The point you make is unconnected and different, but equally invalid. There is nothing to suggest that if the cash-shop didn't exist the mounts we get in game would be better.

They make design decisions based on profit. The cash-shop mounts are worth putting more resources into because they bring in more money than your average run of the mill mount. They therefore acquire resource to capitalise on that market. That's fine. It does not suggest that those resources would be put into the game if the cash-shop didn't exist. Presumably the same profit calculus would still apply to the core game.

So your saying the fact they have more resources put into them doesn't mean they a negative because blizzard would just slack off and not give a fuck otherwise anyways?

Boy I'm certainly moved by that. Bring on the pay pigs.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not going to bother engaging in a subjective feud over which mounts on the store are inferior/superior to the ones produced for the game itself. Personally, I feel like there have been more than enough decent in-game obtainable mounts to offset those in the shop. You're free to disagree but there's no universal standard by which to judge the quality of mounts so this is a bit of a moot point.

The argument that they're incentivized to create intentionally worse mounts in-game to make the store mounts more attractive, however, is so far into conspiracy theory land that it's barely worth engaging with.

I didn't argue design as that is subjective. I argued level of detail that isn't. If it's a conspiracy it's a damn good one as we don't see mounts rivial the cashshop mounts in the expansion they come out in barring promotional ones in terms of level of detail.

[Relapses]

So your saying the fact they have more resources put into them doesn't mean they a negative because blizzard would just slack off and not give a fuck otherwise anyways?

Boy I'm certainly moved by that. Bring on the pay pigs.

- - - Updated - - -



I didn't argue design as that is subjective. I argued level of detail that isn't. If it's a conspiracy it's a damn good one as we don't see mounts rivial the cashshop mounts in the expansion they come out in barring promotional ones in terms of level of detail.

...the idea that certain mounts are "less detailed" is, in and of itself, completely subjective. I could tell you that I feel {x mount} available in game is just as detailed as {y shop mount} and you'd just say that, in your opinion, I'm wrong. It's a pointless subjective diversion which cannot possibly be proven since there is no universal standard by which to judge the quality of either type of mount. The fact that you're trying to use this subjective position to support a completely improvable thesis (store mounts are better because reasons) is precisely why I called your argument incomplete in my first response to you.

[draugril]

...the idea that certain mounts are "less detailed" is, in and of itself, completely subjective. I could tell you that I feel {x mount} available in game is just as detailed as {y shop mount} and you'd just say that, in your opinion, I'm wrong. It's a pointless subjective diversion which cannot possibly be proven since there is no universal standard by which to judge the quality of either type of mount. The fact that you're trying to use this subjective position to support a completely improvable thesis (store mounts are better because reasons) is precisely why I called your argument incomplete in my first response to you.

You can absolutely quantify detail of a computer model. I highly doubt anyone has for specific mounts in WoW, but it's doable.