Guardian Cub Tradable - Bad Idea?

[Khathrok]

Adult words are okay on this site. You can handle it big guy, I know they can be scary, but I'm running out of ways to be condescending about this. He was trying to make a point about gold sellers, and that was a pretty popular practice all the way through Wrath.

I think the joke went over yours and a few others heads, as look what is says instead of com in the website.

[Teasy]

Bad idea that's going into even worser idea.

[Deleted]

Bad idea that's going into even worser idea.

why beacouse they will actualy make less money from it beacouse people will buy it on AH...and why do you care ?its a pet its not god dam legendary its a PET..PET PET...nothing will change but for lazy ppl to make gold...mounts are already being sold...why do you care?

[Hyde]

I'm still peeved that in order to do this they basically nerfed the pet into a 1 character only pet as opposed to a pet for every character old and new!

basically this

[Fenixhart]

My only gripe is that it's character only but still costs the same amount.


But lol@ people still saying the sky is falling from the D3 RMAH and how this is just like that. Really, you people crack me up.

[Blackmist]

It's a bad idea, and it's only one step away from the inevitable Blizzard Gold Shop.

The golden goose laid one less egg this week, so Bobby Kotick is sharpening the butchers knife.

[Fenixhart]

It's a bad idea, and it's only one step away from the inevitable Blizzard Gold Shop.

The golden goose laid one less egg this week, so Bobby Kotick is sharpening the butchers knife.

How is this a bad idea, exactly?

I'm genuinely curious

[tehdef]

None of the comments in this thread are objective. They are all subjective view points with zero actual concrete data or even counterpoints to back up your claims of it being a bad idea.

You have no idea the actual impact. You have no idea what their intent is with this system.

Your own subjectivity regarding your feelings of "RMT" via this item, is just your opinion. Please don't make it sound like fact, because you really don't have any idea. Additionally. Really, stop complaining. This isn't your game, it's not a Democracy. Just get over it. Find something else to whine about. In no way does it have a direct impact on any player if they choose to not participate in the purchase of the items.

I'd also like to point out that it is possible that they are forecasting low for this quarters profits, so they are introducing an item to see how much closer it gets them to their forecasts. That said, they are also trying a new method of distribution, due to concerns of fraud, which ran pretty rampant. So please, get off your high horses. It's generally sad, and entirely unreasonable and you have zero claim to be upset, or claim bad idea, or just overall act like your air of entitlement even matters.

[Blackmist]

How is this a bad idea, exactly?

I'm genuinely curious

Because they're then selling extras that effect gameplay (i.e. money). Everything costs more due to inflation, I mean why spend two hours doing the ore shuffle when you can earn real money and buy yourself 10k gold. Eventually it descends into a contest to see who can spend the most real money to play a game that already has a subscription. There's currently a fairly level playing field for world firsts, etc. How level will it be if Method spend a couple of thousand pounds on gold, buy all the BoEs they can and buy a few week's worth of gear?

For Free To Play games, I'm fine with that model. It's expected. I just don't play them, but I understand why they have to go that route. I just feel a subscription model means they shouldn't do that. Especially when we're getting scant little value for our subs as it is.

[Adramalech]

did we have drake mounts in vanilla? yeah thought so. In vanilla mounts we did get were unique and pretty cool. baron's mount, the AQ bugs, the horde and alliance could get a different model that was unique to the other faction out of ZG, ect.

So no he didn't ruin my point in the slightest. if anything just further proved as we moved forward instead of making a new and exciting mount idea they are being seen more and more in the store.

Invincible shares a mount with the sparkle pony but we all know how rare it is to even see that mount.

The winged guardian is one of the most unique types of mounts I personally think we have seen yet.

Blizz use to use the trading card game but they now realized that you get can all the profit and not nearly as much expense by just cutting out the cards for most of the cool things.

With the exception of the AQ bugs, every single mount you listed is, by your logic, a reskin of another mount. Baron's mount is the same thing as the Forsaken racial mounts, only with a blue-ish glow instead. The ZG mounts, while unique in a way for each faction (Alliance couldn't have Raptors, Horde couldn't have Tigers/Frostsabers/whatever), were still reskins of existing mounts.

The AQ bugs, while completely new and unique, could not be used (and still can't) outside of AQ, with the exception of the Black which even after the "accident" with new servers, not a lot of people have.

The Winged Guardian shares the same skeleton as the alliance Gryphon Mounts and the Ebon Blade flying mount. But let's follow the trend shall we? Just a reskin.

Like you said yourself, the Celestial Steed is a reskin of Invincible, no matter how rare Invincible is.

This was completely off topic, but I kinda felt like pointing out how "unique" all these mounts are/were. Even the Raven Lord, which is a mount praised as the most amazing ground mount this game has ever seen, uses the same skeleton as any common raptor. I mean, it's a lazy reskin, damnit!


I said this before, and I'll say it again: paint this pet with all the devil's colors as much as you like, it won't be half as bad as it's being made out to be, things are always blown out of proportion, and this is no different. If I'm wrong, too freaking bad, it still doesn't affect me in the slightest.

[Fenixhart]

Because they're then selling extras that effect gameplay (i.e. money). Everything costs more due to inflation, I mean why spend two hours doing the ore shuffle when you can earn real money and buy yourself 10k gold. Eventually it descends into a contest to see who can spend the most real money to play a game that already has a subscription. There's currently a fairly level playing field for world firsts, etc. How level will it be if Method spend a couple of thousand pounds on gold, buy all the BoEs they can and buy a few week's worth of gear?

For Free To Play games, I'm fine with that model. It's expected. I just don't play them, but I understand why they have to go that route. I just feel a subscription model means they shouldn't do that. Especially when we're getting scant little value for our subs as it is.

So it's a bad idea based on Supposition?

And really, there are games that have both Subs and game shops. Champions online comes to mind, and people are buying and selling cash shop items there all the time-even using them as trade goods.


But then again their items are set up differently.

[tacoloco]

He was trying to make a point about gold sellers, and that was a pretty popular practice all the way through Wrath.

Gold sellers, yes. Blizzard selling gold, no. I can't read the text in those screenshots, so I have no idea what it says.

---------- Post added 2011-10-11 at 07:34 AM ----------

Because they're then selling extras that effect gameplay (i.e. money).

Except Blizzard isn't doing that. Mounts and pets for RL money don't affect gameplay in any way.

[Deleted]

I think some people are forgetting that this feature means that the actual pet isn't the same as the other Blizz Store pets! Pet collectors are being penalized in favor of greedy players

[The Glitch]

I like how everyone is calling this "puppygate" and saying 10-10-11 is the day WoW officially died, yet the poll shows a nearly 50:50 split on opinions. Just like US politics....

Shouldn't it be called *Kittygate* or *cubbygate* considering it's a cub of a semi Lion which is of the Cat family? Not Dog.. lol

But I'm with you on this, it's pretty unbelievable how wound up people get over this kinda thing.

[Nerv-Faktor]

I've seen countless people saying that this will destroy the server economies. Please explain to me how. Blizzard is not creating gold with this, they're creating a 'useless' vanity pet. The gold people will make with this is from other players on their realm. This neither increases nor decreases the gold on the realm, so how does it hurt the economy?

[tacoloco]

I've seen countless people saying that this will destroy the server economies. Please explain to me how. Blizzard is not creating gold with this, they're creating a 'useless' vanity pet. The gold people will make with this is from other players on their realm. This neither increases nor decreases the gold on the realm, so how does it hurt the economy?

To some people everything Blizzard does that the disagree with, will destroy something. It's a complete lack of rational perspective that drives threads like these.

[Fraza]

why beacouse they will actualy make less money from it beacouse people will buy it on AH

How do you think it got on the AH in the first place? No matter who ends up with the pet, it's already been paid for. How do you not make the connection?

[Canadin]

same as buying gold no?

[AutomaticBadger]

I think it is good. Should reduce the amount of people buying from gold sellers since they 'might' be getting a better price per gold earned.

[Primernova]

One more bad idea from the worst developement team in the history of WoW.

I have been a lifetime gamer and never has Blizzard registered on my radar until WoW, or after. RTS are boring and dungeon crawlers are something my GF plays on her phone, again, very boring.

They are now destroying WoW, so well... I will move on. I've never felt the pathetic need to buy gold and this will just sour me and many others to corporate greed.

Games shold be: Fun, innovation, art, marketing and then profit. Not the other way around.