Az's latest epic rant against Blizzard's new store mount

[Kralljin]

You make it sound as if the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. You can both play the game for ingame rewards and buy things off the shop. Or you can do just one. Or neither. It's entirely up to you.

With that line of thinking, Pay to win is fine to you.

Because that's something i honestly want to know from the people who argue with me over this topc:
If Blizzard sold actual Loot via the store, would this be a red line to you or would you apply the same arguments?

Because any argument that isn't "it's just cosmetic" can also be applied to pay to win as well.
Ignoring the small detail that WoW is indirectly Pay to Win already due to WoW Token and Boost services.

Also I don't know where you come up with this idea that items in the shop should rather be awarded in the game. What makes you think that was ever a feasible option?

Considering there was a point where WoW has existed just fine without the shop, i'd say it was.
Also, bear in mind that Artists that worked on that mount could have worked on a lot of other art related projects for the base game.
And 8.3 isn't a patch brimming with loads of new art.

I am not going to give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt that these mounts are exclusively done by people hired for store mounts.
Why? Because they are a big business out to make a lot of money.
Taking a bit of the top off the base product and selling it for big profit as "feature" is a pretty standard business strategy.

Simply put, without the shop and its revenue, those extra mounts would not exist.

They could do it without issue and still have a massive profit, so it's not like these are exclusive.
But if you let them just get away with it, they obviously choose the option of greater profit.

And let's be honest here: No one in this game has collected everything.

You might as well be a collector of things you like.
There are most certainly people who just look at a new patch, check out the new mounts / collectibles, get those and then unsub again.

Everyone has to draw the line somewhere between the things we are going to pursue and the things we can't due to whatever constraints.

And i think people should argue to get the best for their money and not just be indifferent to an ever increasing monetization.

I'm not a fan of the guy. Taking someone who pays monthly and getting them to pay a 6-month sub, actually loses Blizzard money..

Ever considered that the people who are always subbed aren't the target audience of that offer?

I mean, "Play the patch" has become a common theme for Blizzard, that exists because there are seemingly a lot of players who come back for a major patch, then drop the game until the next one.

If you get these to sub for 6 months instead of ~3, you make a profit, because someone who usually only subbed for 3 months, now subbed for 6 months.
The additional three months are now your mount revenue.

Even people who sub for three months, buy the mount via the store are getting off cheaper than someone taking the offer and only playing for 3 months.

[Jacob6875]

Don't really see what there is to be outraged about.

Being on the 6 month subscription saves you money and now I get free mounts for doing what I do anyway ?

Seems like a win win.

[scelero]

Ever considered that the people who are always subbed aren't the target audience of that offer?

I mean, "Play the patch" has become a common theme for Blizzard, that exists because there are seemingly a lot of players who come back for a major patch, then drop the game until the next one.

If you get these to sub for 6 months instead of ~3, you make a profit, because someone who usually only subbed for 3 months, now subbed for 6 months.
The additional three months are now your mount revenue.

Even people who sub for three months, buy the mount via the store are getting off cheaper than someone taking the offer and only playing for 3 months.

I get what you're saying, but I used to think the same thing because it was something I heard from one person on youtube. but you ever consider that there aren't THAT many people who will come back to sub just for a mount? Those who farm mounts, typically LOOOOVE farming to work the AH as well. This is what I know from personal experience being in the game and not listening to bloggers.

I don't believe THAT many people would normal only sub for 2-3 months go for a 6 month sub. I get that there are some like this, but I would argue that there are more getting the mount by default than those who are only subbing 6 months for a mount.

To me, this is people ranting over the fact it's not cheap to be poor. I get paying 6 months up front is more expensive TODAY.....

If there's genuine people who are ready to unsub for an amount of time due to lack of content or for WHATEVER reason, and only resub to get a mount. I don't know. I feel like they deserve it, and have no reason to complain.

There's this whole 'why would blizzard spend ALL THAT TIME skinning this to not make a profit'. Honestly. A good artist doesn't take that long to render the mount we see. The assets are normally already in the game and making texture, etc isn't that difficult. And I know the 'if you're so good at, why don't they hire you' response is coming because people just don't get it. but if you look at what they paid the artist to make this and what they make off it are so night and day different, it has nothing the money they invested into artists creating it.

Those who come back for a patch, don't care about a paid mount built off the subscription model. Because I'm generally one of those that fall under this category.

To me, this only really hurts those who farm efficiently to the point where they can buy tokens and haven't paid for the game with dollars for YEARS.

[Riistov]

Just look at his viewcount as of late. This mount was a godsend to his need for attention.

Yup, the dude makes his living fueling the outrage machine. Always has.

[Kralljin]

but you ever consider that there aren't THAT many people who will come back to sub just for a mount?

I didn't say this offer makes people resub by itself.
Blizzard doesn't release these mounts / offers randomnly into the patchcycle, they release it right at the release / announcement of a major patch.
If you doubt this, check the announcement / release date of Patch 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 alongside the corresponding mount offers.

As said above, this offer mostly targets "play the patch" people, when do these people resub?
Right before / after a major patch, so that offer targets them 100%.

So, it's targeted at those people that generally only play for like 3 months into a patch, then unsub until the next patch.

It's not there to encourage people to resub, it's there to encourage sub for a longer time than they usually do.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Why is anyone surprised at this point? Its yet another in a long, long line of Blizzard's shitty business practices.

World of Warcraft is a MMORPG with a monthly $15 subscription. On top of paying the monthly sub fee, you are also required to drop $60 on the latest expansion every two years in order to play the latest content, effectively making the game $210 a year to play. The expectation is, ofcourse, that you are constantly giving Blizzard money for the right to play a game that is being constantly updated. You should have access to everything in the game, right? Well, starting in 2010, Blizzard implemented a cash shop, with the first ever mount you bought for IRL money: the Celestial Steed. Rather than being able to earn this mount ingame (a game you are paying $210 a year for), you had to drop another $15 to buy this mount. Blizzard then implemented more cash shop items, with mounts costing $15, pets costing $10, and helmets costing $10. To add insult to injury, the cash shop items have far more work put into them any of the items you can earn ingame.

In 2015, Blizzard introduced the WoW token. Players could spend $20 on a WoW Token, and trade it to other players in game. Other players could then consume the WoW Token to obtain $20 of Blizzard store balance, which they could spend to buy other Blizzard games, more subscription time, mounts and pets, etc. This effectively legitimized gold selling. This by itself isn't really the problem. Prior to this, gold selling was illegal but nonetheless rampant, and constantly led to player's accounts being hacked. The WoW token created a safe alternative, and also allowed players who spent a lot of time in WoW to use their surplus gold to play for free. Crafted gear wasn't anywhere near as powerful as top end raid gear, so you couldn't really buy power anyway.

The problems came later, when Blizzard began designing the game around incentivizing people to buy the WoW token for real money. In 2018's BFA expansion, a Brutosaur mount was added to the game, was extremely prestiegeous (it's the largest mount, it's a freaking dinosaur, can carry multiple players, and is the only mount in the game with an auction house you can access anywhere). It costed 5,000,000 gold. The real scummy part came the next year, in 2019, when Blizzard announced that they would be removing the ability to obtain the mount soon. Blizzard had never done something like this before. Why? To drive up WoW Token prices ofcourse! Gotta create artificial scarcity and squeeze as much money out of their customers as possible!

[rhorle]

World of Warcraft is a MMORPG with a monthly $15 subscription. On top of paying the monthly sub fee, you are also required to drop $60 on the latest expansion every two years in order to play the latest content, effectively making the game $210 a year to play.

So? 210 a year is only 3.5 "normal priced 59.99" games. Stop being angry over such petty stuff. Don't pay if you don't want to play. If you don't think you are getting your value's worth don't make the purchase. That is common sense life skills 101. There are plenty of things that don't offer value to their cost. There is nothing wrong with that because each person finds value in different things. Some people can spend years playing Minecraft or Skyrim getting an insane return on investment. Others can spend 5 mins and never touch them again getting a poor value.

Blizzard is not designing the game around encouraging people to buy the WoW token. The real way to make money is by offering raid/dungeon carries. Yes that gold will come from the token but you can earn gold with out ever purchasing the token yourself. So your argument is moot. Also the AH mount is irrelevant since it hasn't yet had an impact on Token prices.

If this is an original thought you need to research it better. If you are just parroting some content creator then you need to stop believing everything you hear and research better.

[SirCowdog]

Seriously curious here: Do you still play any Blizzard product and how will anything bite us in the ass down the road?

I've been very clear in a number of threads that I'm currently on the Blitzchung boycott. No blizzard games or products until his ban is lifted/expires. To be candid, I am VERY interested to see what happens with Diablo 4, and sooner than that, Shadowlands. If SL is anything like Legion in terms of quality(which it appears it will be), I suspect it will be worth buying and playing.

But other than that, what is Blizzard currently releasing or focusing on that's worth playing? Starcraft and diablo 3 have basically been abandoned. Hearthstone...lol? MTG:Arena blows it out of the water(although neither are all that great). Heroes of the storm is trash tier compared to LoL and DotA2. Warcraft 3 remasted? Meh.

As to how it will bite players in the ass? The same way anything will if consumers don't pay attention to the things corporations do. This shouldn't need explaining, but the EA loot box series of events is a good example of what happens when a gaming company tried to go too far, and the market responds.

Is the 6 month mount anywhere near that egregious? Of course not. But as I've said for the Nth time now: It's just one more thing in a series of events meant to push the envelope; anchoring player expectations as to what's acceptable or normal. And no, talking about it and discussing the things that corporations do is not a waste of time if you're a person like me who greatly enjoys quality games and wants to see the industry as a whole, much less the genre, improve rather than degrade.

[SirCowdog]

Thanks for clarifying. Haven't looked closer into the Blizzchung thing any other than what I read here - where he apparently got his money after all, accepted the consequences, apologized and isn't really banned for an extensive time?

So..yeah..fair enough...pick your fights...pick what you seem worthy to boycott. (I know I would rather boycott other companies that are up to their neck in China's ass...or chinese products when possible...but that is just me)

Blitzchung went from a year long ban and no money, to six months and got to keep his winnings. But the point wasn't about Blitzchung's treatment specifically, it was about the way Blizzard bowed to China during the Hong Kong protests. It actually escalated to the point where Blizzard received a letter from several congress members. You should probably look into it a bit more.

[oathy]

Its the fake laughing utterly no need for it.
there's a lot of material is 8.3 really going to keep people till new expansion?
also this wasnt from LOTR. But the Simpsons episode with poochie the dog.

[Nightstalker]

He actually made a follow up video because they set the video to private. Let's bet it will be up at the end of the ID, just like the Azshara cinematic when EP was released. And then he has to make another follow up video. Holy shit is this guy predictable.

[SirCowdog]

He actually made a follow up video because they set the video to private. Let's bet it will be up at the end of the ID, just like the Azshara cinematic when EP was released. And then he has to make another follow up video. Holy shit is this guy predictable.

To be fair, that ending cinematic was pretty awful and fully deserving of mockery.

[Doffen]

Why? To drive up WoW Token prices ofcourse! Gotta create artificial scarcity and squeeze as much money out of their customers as possible!

But it didn't, so your whole WoW token point is kinda invalidated.

It costs even lower now than before they announced it. The only time it went up in price during the last 6 months was around Classic launch. Way before the Brutosaur announcement.

[VarsityAthlete]

le epic le epic le epic

[Raelbo]

Or maybe Blizzard has been doing a LOT of really shitty things in the past few years.

Things that you're especially adept at spotting even though someone like me just cannot see it. Strange.

Yes, let me just perform the greatest feat known to mankind for your convenience: Convincing someone on the internet to change their mind. :/

My request was for you to give a convincing argument. Not necessarily to convince me to change my mind.

Let me explain very clearly the problem with your argument: You start with the premise that if this promotion gets someone who would have unsubbed earlier to sub for six months, then it's bad. But you've never substantiated that position. Why is that bad? What about it qualifies it as a "shady practice"?

Up until this point, your entire argument is essentially a strawman because all you've done is argue over whether we're paying for the mount or if it's free, and then concluding that, because some are paying for it, this makes the practice shady.

I've made my case, and conceded that the mount is a very minor case, but one in a series of poor moves by Blizzard over the past year or two.

Stop telling me it's a poor move. Explain what makes it a poor move. Do that and the rest of your argument makes sense.

You want to trust a corporation who's known for this type of thing

Do you not see how you're presenting a circular argument? Your basis for claiming that this promotion is bad is that you don't trust Blizzard based on other bad things they've done in the past. How do I know that your assessment of those other bad things weren't simply the result of a negative bias against Blizzard in the first place?

[Malix Farwin]

Prolly wrnong place to post this video, people here are very biased towards Blizzard and the target audience for the Mount.

[Flarelaine]

With that line of thinking, Pay to win is fine to you.

Because that's something i honestly want to know from the people who argue with me over this topc:
If Blizzard sold actual Loot via the store, would this be a red line to you or would you apply the same arguments?

That's when I would seriously consider abandoning the game... or at least limiting myself to Classic. I already draw the line at directly sold shop mounts/pets which I don't buy; the 6-month bundle was a discount even without the mount so I took it.

[Raelbo]

With that line of thinking, Pay to win is fine to you.

That really depends on how you define "Pay to Win". Because some people regard being able to buy a battle pet from the store for $$ as Pay to Win. Personally I don't.

To me: Pay to win means that money gives you access to a competitive advantage in the game that people who aren't paying cannot overcome without paying. Essentially:

• If you want to win you have to pay
• If you don't pay, you won't win

Because that's something i honestly want to know from the people who argue with me over this topc:
If Blizzard sold actual Loot via the store, would this be a red line to you or would you apply the same arguments?

If Blizzard sold actual pay to win loot via the store, it would fundamentally change the argument.

Because any argument that isn't "it's just cosmetic" can also be applied to pay to win as well.

How about:

• "It doesn't give you a competitive advantage".
• "It doesn't force other players to spend money on the same thing to keep up"
• "It's optional"
• "You can easily obtain something that does exactly the same thing in game"

None of these can be applied to pay win. I could go on all day.

Ignoring the small detail that WoW is indirectly Pay to Win already due to WoW Token and Boost services.

That doesn't qualify according to any reasonable definition of Pay to Win, sorry.

Considering there was a point where WoW has existed just fine without the shop, i'd say it was.

At no point in the game's history have "shop items" been available in-game. Your assertion is irrational.

Also, bear in mind that Artists that worked on that mount could have worked on a lot of other art related projects for the base game.

Or, consider that without the shop and the extra revenue it brings, the budget needed to justify paying those artists would not exist. I mean, seriously now, what basis is there for this fantasy that if Blizzard didn't get the extra revenue from the shop that they'd still spend just as much on development?

And 8.3 isn't a patch brimming with loads of new art.

Then be thankful that the game is being subsidised by shop revenue. Because take that away and I promise you there will be even less.

I am not going to give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt that these mounts are exclusively done by people hired for store mounts.
Why? Because they are a big business out to make a lot of money.

Given that they're a business out to make a lot of money, why hire those artists at all if there's no shop?

Seriously dude, if you look at what you're saying, it's basically that they're spending less on development because they're bringing in more revenue. That just makes no sense.

I mean, sure, by all means complain that they should sacrifice some profit in order to put more into development. But consider that's it a lot easier to do that if their profit is bigger to start with. And taking away the shop is going to remove a lot of profit in order to free up a small amount of dev resources.

Alternatively, think about it this way: If you take away the shop, that will have a massively negative effect on their revenue. Given your stated opinion of how important profit margins are to a company like Blizzard, do you think they will:
a) maintain their dev budget and accept a huge decrease in profit or
b) cut costs in order to maintain their existing profit margins?

They could do it without issue and still have a massive profit, so it's not like these are exclusive.

They could do it even better with the revenue from the shop.

But if you let them just get away with it, they obviously choose the option of greater profit.

Given that they obviously choose the option of greater profit, and that creating mounts and such costs money (and detracts from profits), it stands to reason that without the shop, they'll also choose to not create those mounts and such.

And i think people should argue to get the best for their money and not just be indifferent to an ever increasing monetization.

How is getting a discount on your game time plus a free mount not getting the best for your money?

Also, the way the shop works, I am getting more for my money because the shop essentially allows Blizzard to avoid subscription increases by passing the costs onto willing payers (ie not me).

[Sandraudiga]

Just to add to this I should point out I purchased multiple 6-month subscriptions some months ago also for discount purposes, and they awarded me a mount retroactively, so I and many other people are getting this mount for free. I didn't expect that and they didn't have to do that.

I'm not OK with store mounts generally but this is not really a good example of player exploitation, as Rochana correctly implies.

For some maybe, when the first 6 month mount was released I had over 4 years game time remaining. I didn't get it retroactively. I've had years of game time for every one of these 6 month mount offers and I've never gotten any of them.

[SirCowdog]

Things that you're especially adept at spotting even though someone like me just cannot see it. Strange.

Why is it strange? Are you good at everything every human being can do? Different people have different skills and experience. I'm not trying to brag, but I'm 43 years old and have been gaming since I was...8? 9? Something like that. This is what I do. And not only do I just game, but I also immerse myself in the gaming news. I follow the industry. My job doesn't require a lot of mental attention, so I slap a bunch of youtube playlists chocked full of industry news and youtubers while I'm there. I clearly spend more time than I probably should on forums like this one.

Do you not see how you're presenting a circular argument? Your basis for claiming that this promotion is bad is that you don't trust Blizzard based on other bad things they've done in the past. How do I know that your assessment of those other bad things weren't simply the result of a negative bias against Blizzard in the first place?

I'm sorry, so what is good about a business model that includes a box price, plus subscription, AND a cash shop? Then on top of that psychological manipulation via FOMO and other more traditional anti-consumer sales tricks.

Again, I go back to the fact of how long I've been gaming. This isn't a normal business model. It's not even a necessary one, given the high quality of other games available that just sell for the box price. And that's not even getting into the relatively low quality of game that Blizzard has delivered with expansions like WoD and BfA.

How do you know my assessment of those bad things aren't a result of negative bias? You don't. It's my opinion based on my own personal experiences. You don't HAVE to trust anything I say at all! I'm simply telling you what I see, and what I believe that leads to. Do you REALLY want me to list every single thing I believe Blizzard has done in the past year that's shady or consumer-unfreindly? Have you not been following their actions at all? Living under the gaming equivalent of the proverbial rock?

Why would I even expend such effort to collate and present all that information when chances are VERY good you won't be convinced anyway, and will very likely just brush it off. You've stated almost as much already. You've even implied that my opinion and arguments are just "circular logic".

It goes back to what I said earlier: Performing the legendary feat of changing the mind of someone on the internet. Believe me or don't. Do what you want.