Why are people losing their minds over a collector's edition mount?

[Hexian]

The people that are ok with this are the same ones responsible for why retail is in the shitter. The only things that are keeping retail afloat are all the cash additions: wow token, mounts, transfers, 6 month sub bonuses, etc, etc. Remove all those and you are left with a dog shit game that Blizz isnt being kept accountable for because financially they are still viable.

[rhorle]

The people that are ok with this are the same ones responsible for why retail is in the shitter. The only things that are keeping retail afloat are all the cash additions: wow token, mounts, transfers, 6 month sub bonuses, etc, etc. Remove all those and you are left with a dog shit game that Blizz isnt being kept accountable for because financially they are still viable.

Collector rewards have been a thing since the very first release of the game. People that are fine with things like that are not why the retail version is terrible. It is instead the people that look for any reason to hate or put down a group of players for no real reason. Because collector editions, store mounts, tokens, veteran bonuses (what 6-month subs essentially are) are not bad things.

Blizzard is kept accountable it just may be the things you want are not the same direction Blizzard, or others, want.

- - - Updated - - -

But I've argued to the ends of days about this with people here, they're part of a secretive corporate defence force or something. They literally cannot admit that Blizzard operates one of the most greedy models in AAA.

Then you clearly haven't heard of Fifa and EA. That is part of the problem with any discussion like this. People use exaggeration to make Blizzard out to be some super evil thing when in reality they are just normal. A normal business doing normal things to make a profit. A sub fee isn't bad because many freemium games offer it and actively encourage you to subscribe. A box fee isn't bad. A digital store isn't bad. It is amazing how so many bad things are accepted when a game is free to try and locks a whole lot more behind obnoxious pay walls. Perception is an amusing thing.

[Prag]

The people that are ok with this are the same ones responsible for why retail is in the shitter. The only things that are keeping retail afloat are all the cash additions: wow token, mounts, transfers, 6 month sub bonuses, etc, etc. Remove all those and you are left with a dog shit game that Blizz isnt being kept accountable for because financially they are still viable.

If 16 mounts and a WoW token are the reason why millions of people play a 20 year old MMO, then you aren’t making the case you think you’re making.

[DechCJC]

"It doesn't affect gameplay, why do you care?"

...

Maybe I'm going a little bit crazy, but aren't vanity items some of the prime motivators to push for a reward in WoW nowadays? Does it need to affect gameplay to matter?

Player power is not the only way to measure progression.

I can understand where the pro MTX side are coming from and respect their opinion, but at this point I think we just want entirely different games. With retail WoW I've grown to accept it, though I don't particularly enjoy its presence. Classic is a different story, it legitimately fills me with frustration and sadness that it's going this way and when I see people defending it, I can't help but get angry.

[Prag]

"It doesn't affect gameplay, why do you care?"

...

Maybe I'm going a little bit crazy, but aren't vanity items some of the prime motivators to push for a reward in WoW nowadays? Does it need to affect gameplay to matter?

Player power is not the only way to measure progression.

I can understand where the pro MTX side are coming from and respect their opinion, but at this point I think we just want entirely different games.

It depends on the audience, doesn’t it?

For the ultra competitive (who also get the most elite mounts), I don’t think so. I doubt all the work going into top progression guilds/groups/PVPers is for the mount/gear.

For the average player? Yeah. I’d think vanity is a big motivator, other than social stuff.

[DazManianDevil]

The Drake mount of course. I played on Light's Vengeance and got that. Also, it is the same game.

I actually got the WinterSpring Frost Saber and the Deathcharger on my retail account and it's cool as shit. Store mounts devalue my effort and makes it look like what I did was not pull out my credit card and buy a fancy mount.

Gladiator mount shows you did something amazing and I was jelly when I saw people with that mount. Everyone wants Ashes because it's a bird made out of fire that has a rare drop.

Maybe because Blizzard has been selling mounts for over a decade and has ruined the prestige of having one. There's a reason the store mounts have become a meme. I just want TBC without an in game shop. That's one of the benefits of playing classic, to avoid all the micro-transaction hell that comes with retail.

The Drake mount, not familiar with what that is, but nicely done. As for playing the same game, I meant it in a more philosophical sense.
Example, there are several eel mounts in retail wow. I have two of them, one came from my very first LFR kill in Tomb of Sargeras, it's green. I have another one from solving the Riddler's mindworm puzzle, took me a few hours of flying around and clicking objects, that one is a different shade of green.
The first mount eludes many collectors, the second doesn't. The mount itself is ugly as sin, the first one has some value in that it is rare, the second doesn't as it is common.
If you value the model of a mount for how it looks and how you got it, that's a winning combo. Unless I'm mistaken, the store mounts don't look anything like rare mounts. Sure they look cool in their own right, but that's all they are.
I have the Glacial Tidestorm mount, looks really cool, had to kill Mythic Jaina for it and it doesn't exist on the store. Doesn't matter if the store releases another Fey Dragon, it's not my Jaina mount.

Or from a rose tinted glasses perspective, my Frostbound Vanquisher is the only raid meta mount I've ever gotten while it was current content. Doesn't matter to me that many others have it, I earned it.
My only point is, I value my own mounts because of what I did to get them when it was hard. Mounts that were easy to get, I don't use.
If Blizzard ever put in a store mount that was also a cutting edge or gladiator mount, I certainly would draw the line there.

It's totally okay to value what you value, for what its worth I took a break from Retail and raided in Classic, got my epic mount and felt good because I farmed out the hefty gold for it.
If I play Classic TBC and see people riding around on Warpstalkers, sure it didn't exist when I played back in 2007 but I'm personally not bothered. It was their choice to spend money on something that otherwise doesn't exist. They're not selling us a dark blue Ashes recolor or a celestial netherdrake, it's a mount that I wished was in the game in 2007 but never existed.

I respect your opinion, though I will still disagree on mounts being a status symbol. Most mounts, since 2004 have been paid for with gold and reputation. No prestige inherent in that scenario. The only prestige I've ever felt for a mount was when I knew it took real work to get.

Off topic, I am glad to see Blizzard giving Alliance paladins access to Seal of Blood to try and curb the inevitable faction balance issues. Was it in BC? No, but I'm okay with #SomeChanges

[Sorrowseer]

I don't care, people are snowflakes with wow when it comes to paying money for none monthly subs, looking at Eastern MMO's, man the grass is not greener on the other side.

[rhorle]

You're making assumptions Rhorle.

Nope. You said Blizzard operates one the greediest models in the industry. A sub fee, box fee, and minor store is far from the greediest. You know by your lenghty response but somehow over look how you exaggerate in order to insult others and/or Blizzard. Blizzard was never a super consumer friendly company. That is part of the problem. You and others keep exaggerating in both directions when Blizzard was always out to make money and do it in any fashion that they could.

WoW is the least greedy of the systems of modern gaming. Even of Blizzard products considering Overwatch loot boxes and stuff makes more then WoW does off of things. You and others always put way to much emphasis on sub and box fees as if it means anything. It really doesn't because even the free to play games charge for expansions and have some kind of subscription model.

[Kralljin]

Remember classic sort of had one with the 15th anniversary collection.

Feel free to link the corresponding Classic mount.

Since then Blizzard has been less about "no changes" and more about changes where it makes sense. Having a collectors edition for the launch makes sense since it is a thing now.

They could've just re used the same rewards from the original collectors edition (Netherwing Pet) wouldn't that have made more sense?

[Prag]

People have no idea the profit margins WoW makes

You're making some great assumptions like Feel free to make up your assumptions about what I believe, I'm not going to discuss them with you other than yes, WoW has an extremely high profit margin,

34% margin against the sector’s 21% average isn’t what I’d consider extreme. That’s ATVI overall, though. Do you have something that specifically calls out the WoW margins?

[anon5123]

The people that are ok with this are the same ones responsible for why retail is in the shitter.

Retail is bad because the game is bad, not because of cash shop mounts and pets.

[rhorle]

Feel free to link the corresponding Classic mount. They could've just re used the same rewards from the original collectors edition (Netherwing Pet) wouldn't that have made more sense?

I said classic sort of had one and not that it had one with a mount and what not. Blizzard has also relented from the "No changes" that they originally were using for Classic. They have since made some changes including the ability to save buffs. They could have just reused the same rewards as the TBC CE but they didn't have to. There is nothing wrong with making it a modern reward for the re-release.

[Kralljin]

I said classic sort of had one and not that it had one with a mount and what not.

There is no "sort of" the 15th anniversary did not feature any classic specfic at all.

"Sort of" implies there is something, when in reality there was nothing.
No Pet, no Mount.

There is nothing wrong with making it a modern reward for the re-release.

When those changes go against the original spirit of the game, it sure does.

Blizzard surely had the ability to add a mount to the CE back in 2007, but chose not to because they know Mounts are a big deal for a lot of players and should not be behind a paywall.

[rhorle]

Well it does, its one of the greediest models of any major AAA game. They arent more or less evil than any other AAA company though. Tell me other games that are truly AAA games with as many players that are more insidious or greedy, there arent many.

Lootboxes are far greedier though I see you think that loot boxes are not greedy. Paying a slot machine for a few skins is not greedy to you. Which means you missed the entire reason why Fifa and EA was brought up early. You seem to be confusing greedy for expensive.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no "sort of" the 15th anniversary did not feature any classic specfic at all.

I never said it did but it was undeniably themed after Vanilla WoW given the giant Ragnaros statue. It even had an Onyxia pin. They didn't release a Classic CE but did a general CE because it was both the 15th anniversary and the re-launch of Classic.

A mount being given as a collection does not go against the original spirit of the game. Have you never heard of the spectral tiger? It was released in the "Fires of Outland" set. Mounts with a CE started in Mists of Pandaria. But sure they released TCG loot cards that required a pay wall because they knew that mounts are special and shouldn't be behind a pay wall.

They just didn't do it because they didn't do it. They started mounts with the MoP CE.

[Kralljin]

I never said it did but it was undeniably themed after Vanilla WoW given the giant Ragnaros statue. It even had an Onyxia pin. They didn't release a Classic CE but did a general CE because it was both the 15th anniversary and the re-launch of Classic.

Classic was launched on the 31th August, whereas the 15th Anniversary CE was released on the 8th October.

I don't think any CE was ever sold post release.
And they are obviously Vanilla themed because the launch of Vanilla is what is being celebrated in the 15th anniversary, not its relaunch.
Bear in mind that referencing Vanilla (especially Ragnaros) has been a staple thing of every major anniversary, the 10th anniversary featured a relaunch of Molten core not because they wanted to hint at Classic Servers.

They share a theme by pure coincidence, the CE for the 15th anniversary would very much looked the same even without Classic, because Vanilla is part of WoW's history, it's not like every nod at Vanilla content is now suddenly a reference to its re release.

A mount being given as a collection does not go against the original spirit of the game. Have you never heard of the spectral tiger? It was released in the "Fires of Outland" set. Mounts with a CE started in Mists of Pandaria. But sure they released TCG loot cards that required a pay wall because they knew that mounts are special and shouldn't be behind a pay wall.

Taking into account that the TCG was also a game in itself makes it different to an ingame cashshop and also that you yourself noted, Blizzard did not add mounts to the CE until way later.
So yes, adding mounts to a CE was clearly something that Blizzard rejected for a long time.

[hulkgor]

Easy answer OP.

We live in the day of the outrage.

Anything and everything justifies outrage or public cries.

I miss the days of limited internet access, we sure had less nonsense on the internet back then.

[Holdodlig]

When people think about the store, they think of it in the wrong way. People complains about the store for two reasons :
1/ They don't want people to have things they didn't farm in game, which would have been a legitimate point if Blizzard never made any promotion of any kind. Sadly, TCG items were a thing back in vanilla, and CE pets too.
2/ They feel like those are scrapped content for the main game, hidden behind a paywall.Those content would have never been created if they were meant to be free. Blizzard obviously try to push for a store in classic since it's what will make classic worth the time they'll invest in it. So, maybe the store is a good compromise for people who want to enjoy TBC.

[Sammonoske]

The amount of crying over this made me initially think Blizzard pulled an EA P2W micros move. I say save the salt for something more important like making sure TBC classic is any good.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

The amount of crying over this made me initially think Blizzard pulled an EA P2W micros move. I say save the salt for something more important like making sure TBC classic is any good.

From what I can tell, and I could be wrong about this, but if one rides on pixels some consider superior to other pixels than the game is fundamentally ruined. I attempted to make reason of it and that is all I have really gotten out of it. Sure, most people will look at it as the obvious cash grab mount so clout won't really be gained accept by those that define all clout in game by mount appearance and nothing more. People that don't care and spend the money will, I imagine, enjoy it for whatever reasons which I consider fine enough but to each their own. Then even considering I am even against the mount being sold in such a fashion but merely not being outraged by it means I am a shill and deserve to die because Blizzard employees are underpaid. Or something along those lines.

I continue to evaluate the situation because at this point it has become entertainment.

[rhorle]

I don't think any CE was ever sold post release.

https://us.shop.battle.net/en-us/fam...rcraft#bundles

Blizzard has kept the upgrades for the Digtal Deluxe version on the store since WoD. Mists of Pandaria was the first to have a digital deluxe and it is also the only one that was "retired". You have no idea if Blizzard rejected adding mounts or just didn't think of it. All mounts were not made account wide until Mists of Pandaria the same time they included a mount in the collectors edition. The celestial steed, the first store mount, in WotLK was the first account wide mount and one of the reasons that helped it sell well at the time.

The TCG may have been a separate game but it still had loot cards that were only to add items to World of Warcraft. And Blizzard did include at least one mount through that method which means they had no problem selling a mount at the time. It doesn't matter if it isn't a direct cash shop it still refutes your point that Blizzard had something against selling rewards at the time.

- - - Updated - - -

In FIFA the players are locked behind lootboxes and you need them to play, its literally pay to win.

https://public.tableau.com/views/FUT...showVizHome=no

Sure it isn't greedy at all. Just because something is pay to win is "optional" does stop it from being greedy. In no world will a box price and subscription be the greediest thing in the gaming world. You seem to think just because you can play for free it absolves something from being greedy. Or that because you don't have to buy the "optional" loot box that it can't be greedy.

That is the problem with discussions like this. You are blind to anything else and are hell bent on calling Blizzard super greedy while ignoring everything else. Hate like that isn't good for anyone to have.