"A logical and reasoned response" has no value whatsoever when the one giving it says THIS IS HOW THINGS WORK, while trying to look superior because of their supposedly wider knowledge. Therefore, I needed to ask what is the actual verifiable source, since he/she's riding such a high horse.
It turned out that it was all speculation, so I have no reason to believe it, especially since it was presented as THE truth instead of a bona fide speculation.
so you are ok if 50% of the things they make end up being locked in micro transaction ? maybe you are ok with playing a character only made with lines and dots as their body and head but having graphical cosmetic stuff is actually part of the game and must not be locked behind a pay wall.
So let's get back to your original point then(which I actually tend to agree with). You said earlier in the thread:
"Which is I think where the difference of opinions is breaking down. What Raelbo is saying is technically correct. Often times the revenue from a game's cash shop can pay for both more cash shop items as well as help fund additional in-game content for everyone. This is actually the foundation of the F2P model.
The point of contention is that a cash shop does not seem necessary to fund ANYTHING in a title which is already charging $40-$50 for each expansion on top of a monthly subscription(which can also earn an extra $5 for Blizz via token). Not to mention collectors editions. WoW is not a F2P game, so why are we seeing more and more elements of the F2P model associated with it?
I think @Raelbo has does have some responsibility to back up his statements about the cash shop funding WoW content or cash shop items. But he's not technically wrong, either. The only real argument here is whether or not we, as players, find it acceptable for a cash shop to be part of WoW's business model.
How about you get the data then?
Or failing that, put together a logical argument of your own. In the very least, if you want to take umbrage with my argument, at least have the courtesy to show me where my logic goes wrong.
Of course you don't want to do that, because you lack an argument, you just want to be pissed at Blizz and woe betide anyone who has the audacity to point out that you're actually just full of nonsense.
- - - Updated - - -
I would have thought the answer was obvious.
WoW has less than half the number of subscribers that it had at its peak. Not to mention that the subscription rate hasn't increased in 15 years and even at low inflation that is going to affect their real earnings.
In short, the rise of alternative revenue streams has become necessary for the game in order to mitigate their loss of revenue from other streams. And while I realise it's a popular notion among people on MMO-C to believe that Blizzard has absolutely no reason to need more money other than greed, the reality of the business world is that endeavours that show massive losses in revenue and do nothing about it are doomed.
Ok, I'll be blunt: Sod off. @Soon-TM too. I have backed up my statements far more than the people I am debating against. The demand that I present data to counter an assertion equally devoid of data is ridiculous. It's little more than an attempt to deflect from the fact that my opponents have no argument.
As you said, I am basically correct. My logic is sound. If you're going to hold me to having to produce data that obviously isn't available while giving a free pass to everyone else who is making their own unsupported assertions on the other side, then that's just plain hypocrisy. This debate, by virtue of the lack of hard data is all about who can come up with the better argument, so by all means be critical of my argument. The only people who should be held responsible for producing data are those who demand it of others.
Not whether, but why. I cannot change the fact that some people are going to insist on being butthurt by the cash shop. But I can, and will, point out whether their reasons have any actual merit.
- - - Updated - - -
You're talking past what I was saying. It doesn't matter what kind of shenanigans the developers pull to make the items in the shop sell better, shop sales still, fundamentally, depend on the existence of an active playerbase. And the bigger that playerbase, the bigger the pool of customers available to the shop.
All other factors being equal, if Blizzard neglects the state of the game in order to benefit the shop, it's going to cost them subscribers, which costs them not only lost money from subscriptions, but from the shop too.
Don't care if they add more MTX to the shop, still won't support it.
I tells you, sky is about to fall...
@Raelbo you've made a lot of assumptions about Blizzard's business development with nothing to back them up, yet you are STILL selling them as an ultimate truth. It is not my job to prove or disprove them, burden of proof is still a thing last time I checked. I just want to know how can you be so sure with nothing at all to back your words up.
Buy expansion, pay sub, cool shit on the cash shop anyway
Thanks blizzard.
World of Warcraft: Shadowblands
Diablo Bore.
You do realise that all of these can be bought with a lot less ingame gold than the brutosaur mount, which costs 5 mil gold? I see no complaining about the brutosaur mount, so why do you treat cash shop items (which can be treated as gold sinks vaguely), as if they are something out of the ordinary? Hell, buying an entire year of sub to get the entire set from RAF costs like 1/5th of the brutosaur's gold (if you factor in the extra months of gametime you are getting).
Lol. You've shown zero evidence of being able to manage anything "huge". Small, baseless, sure. It seems that's your limit.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh cry me a river. How the hell do you take umbrage with me when this thread is FULL people (yourself included) presumptuously presenting baseless opinions as facts. The post you took issue with was itself responding to exactly the same.
And when you "challenged" me to back up my statements, I took the effort to explain my reasoning with an actual argument. But when invited to critique said backing, which you requested, all you could respond with was to call it a wall of text.
Nay, I think the real issue here is that you're triggered because someone has the audicity to challenge your view. And because you clearly lack the ability to counter the argument, your response is simply to go full on ad hominem. All you've done is hit me with flat 2-3 line responses devoid of any reasoning.
Also, talk about irony. I dug up your "contribution" to the discussion:
You have some gall flaming me for making baseless claims and then demanding that I bring "data" to the discussion
Last edited by Raelbo; 2019-11-26 at 07:14 AM.