I thought we were talking about this horse, not the charity pet.
We are. I'm noting how the line can be drawn between the two, and by not being outspoken then, it's a little late to be outspoken now concerning cash-shopping.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Overall an interesting piece and I agree with his general view of the whole affair but...
Justin seems to treat gamers and the press as one and the same:
The gaming press seemed to be mesmerized by the sparkly nature of the Steed, and essentially didn’t notice what had just happened – Blizzard got a free pass. In fact, the overall tone was one of patronizing affection: “Look, the silly players got iddy-biddy horseys. That’s so cute”. And herein lies the double standard.
If any other game had done this, they would have been crucified.
-----
What Blizzard has managed to do is to take a concept abhorrent to many gamers and make it palatable.
But they're obviously not.
If Blizzard got a 'free pass' from the press, it's not like mmorpg.com are shining paragons of journalistic integrity. They are far from it. As in any press, there's a certain degree of self-serving bias in the mmo press eg. desire to keep on mmo developers' good side for exclusive interviews, desire to get a job in the mmo development etc. etc. Which is why no even mildly astute reader believes everything they read.
And I'm not sure exactly how biased this press is anyway. Good press is supposed to report facts and preferably without bias. The fact is the steed is sparkly and it has sold well. Those are concrete facts which can safely and quickly be put in print. The effect it's had on the game's community etc. is harder to nail down.
The supposed "double standard" may even be the complete opposite of what you see it to be. It may be being reported in this fashion precisely to get the kind of reaction (i.e. outrage) that they've gotten from you and many others.
"If any other game had done this, they would have been crucified." and "Blizzard gets treated differently from every other developer in the press because they’re just so slick. You could argue that they’ve earned it, but game journalists should at least be talking about the fact that WoW just became an RMT game."
I'm glad that it was pointed out. I considered WoW to have turned RMT when they started with the pets, this though comfirms it. I really don't care at all one way or the other about cash shops but it's nice to see someone else point it out.
I thought we were talking about this horse, not the charity pet.
We are. I'm noting how the line can be drawn between the two, and by not being outspoken then, it's a little late to be outspoken now concerning cash-shopping.
Some of us did speak out back then.
The idea of money going to charity does make one feel all warm and fuzzy. But I worked briefly in the the profit-from-charity industry and it's ugly.
It's often referred to as the 'charity pet' but only half of those profits went to charity. It is obviously good when money goes to charity - but I also find it a bit disturbing when private industry profits from it.
Like the recent trend in charity is not to ask for one-off donations but to get people to sign up to donate $30 a month on their credit card. The very fine-print that they hope you don't look at is that not a single cent goes to charity until you've donated $30 a month for a bit over 2 years. All of that money goes to private companies who manage these schemes.
What Blizzard did was worse though. They pocketed over a million dollars from that scheme and most of that would have been pure profit.
I considered WoW to have turned RMT when they started with the pets, this though comfirms it. I really don't care at all one way or the other about cash shops but it's nice to see someone else point it out.
It's actually kind of where they started. Back in the planning stages WoW was originally to be a free-to-play game. But they crunched the numbers and just couldn't see it working so they opted for a subscription.
But WoW really is turning into the doomsday scenario. The pro-MT crowd cry "it's only fluff and it's cheap" when the little MTs are added and the anti-MT crowd cry "that's just where it starts".
What I think is especially hypocritical is the way everyone jumped down Allods throat just a month ago for having prices like this. The Russians should have stuck to their capitalist guns instead of caving in.
Originally posted by hogscraper I understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion but its just sad when people gloss over just how bad their opinion makes them look to someone on the outside looking in. To the guy above crying about the charity pet, $1,110,000 of that money went to the Make a Wish foundation. That's 1.1 million dollars going to help brighten the lives of people who need an uplifting experience the most. If you added up every cent that you and every member of your whole family ever donated in their combined lives and threw in every penny every one of those people's friends donated in their entire lives to charity it would be closer to zero than 1.1 million. How much did you donate to Make A Wish last year bro?(and by bro I mean a myriad of words that will get me banned from this site)... I concede that it would have been better for them to give more of a percentage of the proceeds away but when the total is more money than some people make in a lifetime, complaints against them sound like anger just looking for an outlet.
Alright, and how many lives did they destroy with a terrible game?
"Hmmm, sounds like something you’d do if your next MMO is going to be free-to-play."
*Dingle-lingle*
It makes my want to twist my evil moustache in respect. I didn't even think about how they did the TCG thing long before SWG did, and far more successfully. This *has* been a weaning process.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Chairman Mao was incredibly smart in the way that he changed China. He was very strategic. Did he change China for the better? That's just personal opinion.
Blizzard is being very strategic in releasing this celestial steed. Has the steed changed WoW for the better? That's just personal opinion.
All they had to do was make the mount BOE. That's all they had to do...
If it were BOE, then people could sell it on the AH, and the complaints about double-dipping would have had no ground. Not only that, but if they expanded on that idea and sold a variety of cosmetic items on the item shop, all of which were BOE and could be sold on the AH, they'd be killing two birds with one stone.
First, people who don't want to work in-game will have an avenue to drop some extra cash and get that item. But second and more importantly, if someone wants to buy gold for some reason, there's no need to use a 3rd-world company anymore. Just buy something off of the blizzard store, and sell it on the AH. Problem solved.
They could even sell game time-cards on the shop that would be usable in-game. That way you're also helping the subscription situation, where some people could "work" in-game for gold, and buy a 30-day card on the AH. Blizzard still gets their money, and the players are happy.
But no... they had to sell exclusive items. This is just greedy double-dipping, and will do nothing but tarnish their otherwise excellent name. Can anyone even estimate the long-term damage this will do to the Blizzard name?
I know it definitely hurt their image in my mind. And their Starcraft2 tripple-dipping scheme doesn't help either.
..And their Starcraft2 tripple-dipping scheme doesn't help either.
I am absolutely sure that it will end up speaking for itself. Either all three versions are awesome as standalones, and have a decent length (god help them if it's over in a few hours a piece), or it may be the most loathed product from blizz yet. It's not going to stop people from buying all 3, but the vast majority is simply not going to, especially after tasting one and not liking it.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
BLizzard /Activizion will keep pushing this further. Personally they are going alot faster than I expected. This mount is after all an item that has unique features that no other item in the game has. And it is DIRECTLY affecting gameplay cause you will not need to buy any other mount in the game.... ever !! And once it was acutally some acomplishment to get a mount...
Whats next ? WHy not items that level up with you ? Green or even blue valued? Im not sure... but this store is not created for just 4 items. It is created for much much more and bigger things. You can count on that.
BLizzard /Activizion will keep pushing this further. Personally they are going alot faster than I expected. This mount is after all an item that has unique features that no other item in the game has. And it is DIRECTLY affecting gameplay cause you will not need to buy any other mount in the game.... ever !! And once it was acutally some acomplishment to get a mount...
Ya, but it doesn't account for flying mounts, and the stats can still be better on future in-game drops. This only affects the barrier between you and your first mount, which is BFD to me.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion but its just sad when people gloss over just how bad their opinion makes them look to someone on the outside looking in. To the guy above crying about the charity pet, $1,110,000 of that money went to the Make a Wish foundation. That's 1.1 million dollars going to help brighten the lives of people who need an uplifting experience the most. If you added up every cent that you and every member of your whole family ever donated in their combined lives and threw in every penny every one of those people's friends donated in their entire lives to charity it would be closer to zero than 1.1 million. How much did you donate to Make A Wish last year bro?(and by bro I mean a myriad of words that will get me banned from this site)...
I concede that it would have been better for them to give more of a percentage of the proceeds away but when the total is more money than some people make in a lifetime, complaints against them sound like anger just looking for an outlet.
So much fail. 10% of my monthly proceeds is more of a SACRIFICE than 1 million in raw numbers... for a game that boasts 1 billion in revenue (1 per mille?). But hey, let there be a sliding scale because someone pushes more raw volume, not mass per volume.
Keep the blinders on. How are taxes tallied? Oh, based on someone's income, which is ratio'ed against a national average (hi percentage!), of which calculations are done (those calculations being percentages), to obtain a raw number on the output. Seems to me like percentages ARE the measuring stick, because it's a standard that can apply to any and everyone in any bracket of life.
My statement stands. It's insulting to claim charity, and give short of 100% of the net profit. They use the word to trigger emotions by the consumer, but it's not the purpose nor cause of their product.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Good business. I'm not surprised people are outraged. Everyone gets outraged at every little change, and most of them don't even know what they're outraged about -- they're just outraged because everyone else is.
Well I know what I'm "outraged" about - though that would be too strong a word for it for me. A better word would be disgusted or disappointed.
Disappointed at how the genre is slowly but surely making a steady turn away from being about achievement through playing, and moving toward acqusition by paying. Try as I might to keep an open mind to it, I can not understand the attraction nor mentality behind skipping the gameplay aspect of a *game*, and instead just wanting to buy things outright.
What's wrong with charging $25 for a mount - besides being charged on top of a subscription, plus a game and at least 3 expansions?
- It's more than half the cost of a stand-alone expansion, or many games - for a single item.
- The item *could* have been presented through actual gameplay, such as a quest line, a difficult fight... something done *in-game* to earn the mount as a reward at the end - you know... by actually *playing* the game. Instead, Blizzard have said "Screw that... Want the mount? $25. Pay up suckas".
- There is no in-game alternative (that I'm aware of) to acquire the mount, so if you want it... you have to pay up. Can't afford it due to budgets? Oh well.. Too bad. Welcome to the world of "have-nots".
Were there at least a way to acquire the mount through gameplay for those who want one but don't have the extra cash to buy it... fine. But then the $25 price-tag might not be so "reasonable" to as many people, would it? They could simply earn it in game... and that just wouldn't be as profitable for Blizzard.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I've been reading MMORPG for quite a while now, and I have to say, I'm a little appalled at what seems barely above plagarism in this news post.
Frankly, I agree with the post and most of the views it represents, but I couldn't help but feel like I'd read it before... oh wait, I pretty much did. Right down to the word choice and post organization, Webb's article bears striking similarity to Brennan's. From my perspective, this article is a joke, and brings Webb's credibility as a writer into question. I expect better of my news sources than to publish such an obviously "inspired" article without a solid nod to a similarly "inspirational" source.
Now maybe that seems like an overreaction at first, but then I look at when these articles were posted. Massively reported on this exact same phenomena over a week and a half ago, yet Webb claims in his article that the rest of the video game press is pretty much oblivious to the fact that Blizzard is being praised by its players for doing something that would put any one of a hundred other MMOs in its grave.
So I'm calling you out on the same double standard you're calling out the players on. In a day and age of this kind of global communication, I expect better of the associated video game press than to ignore the accomplishments of one another, and pretend to be oblivious in the face of brethren site reporting on the exact same issue over a week before you did.
If CNN were to report on "breaking news" a week and a half after the BBC reported the exact same story, using identical word choice, article organization, and phrasing, but without putting out a nod to the BBC for picking up on it first, there would be media outcry for the blunder. But MMORPG can get away with it, apparently. No big deal, right?
Normally MMORPG is much better about this. You've been man enough in the past to link to your competitors sites in the past when they get cool interviews or catch news stories when your columnists were busy doing their jobs elsewhere. So why not this time? Why was this article not written with consideration to the associated press? I hope you can rise to the expectations of your readers and news community, MMORPG, because you've just lowered your own bar for acceptible conduct.
OMG CHILL OUT Justin! This streed doesnt do anything better than you can aquire with ingame gold.It doesnt make a player better in PVP or help his gear score. If you dont want to buy them , DONT. You are acting like the NRA when they took FULL AUTO Maching guns away from the public and thought the next day you wouldnt be able to even own a gun. or are you just trying to stir the pot to get responces out of us (which makes you no better than Blizzard)?
I played WoW from late beta until around 6 months before BC. Picked up BC and played it until around October 2008. After the introduction of the TCG with in-game prizes, daily quests to strictly regulate how quickly you could attain in-game rewards, and some comments the devs made in the forums, it seemed to me that they were no longer interested in creating the the best gaming experience around, merely trying to keep players on the hook for another month and/or TCG pack (and another and another and another...).
Last year, I ran into this article ( http://www.gamespot.com/news/6226758.html ), in which Activision Blizzard CEO Robert Kotick pretty much killed any desire I had to pick up any further Activision Blizzard titles. The moneyshot was this beautiful line, "The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."
I'm not surprised that they have started adding straight cash shop items to WoW (as opposed to just the TCG items) - I am surprised it took them this long to do so.
It would seem that Mr. Kotick has had his WoW minions hard at work, trying to find new ways of not only taking "all the fun out of making video games", but also out of playing them.
Okay I’m going to be the voice of dissention here. Paying 25 50 or 100 dollars does not mean you have “Money” It means you are willing to spend cash on something other people aren’t. The notion of it being anything but that is sheer ignorance The article was the biggest whine fest I have seen in quite some time and basically boils down to, I’m a 40 man epeener who is pissed because someone doesn’t have to shit in socks to have something nice.
Seriousley Get the fuck over yourself.
And No I did not buy the mount, I chose not to.....that's the great thing, it's a choice.
OMG CHILL OUT Justin! This streed doesnt do anything better than you can aquire with ingame gold.It doesnt make a player better in PVP or help his gear score. If you dont want to buy them , DONT. You are acting like the NRA when they took FULL AUTO Maching guns away from the public and thought the next day you wouldnt be able to even own a gun. or are you just trying to stir the pot to get responces out of us (which makes you no better than Blizzard)?
Responding to your post, Rampage, but answering the blue bit in particular, because I've seen the same argument made by many others. So, this post is in response to any who have put forth that point-of-view....
My issue with that blue bit is the short-sightedness it demonstrates.
What of those who *enjoy* collecting things like mounts, but prefer to do so by playing the game? Or don't have the excess cash to spend on such a thing? What of those who would rather obtain it through actual gameplay - you know that thing you're supposed to find in a *game*? What if they'd rather complete a quest line, or fell some tough enemy, or "tame" the animal to make it a mount, or some other in-game activity to receive it as the reward at the end? They don't matter? Their sub fee doesn't entitle them as much to the content they enjoy as yours does? Their entertainment should be set at a higher price tag, and that's okay, because it doesn't affect you?
There are a significant number of people out there for whom PvP stats and uber gear are not their prime motivation in playing a MMO. There are many out there who play MMOs for the social element.. They enjoy collecting things, like mounts, or pets. That's what is fun to them. They pay the same subscription fee you pay. To a number of them, having no option but to spend $25 - on top of their sub fee - on a single mount that they can't obtain otherwise very likely *is* a big deal.
I'm not particularly interested in "collecting" mounts myself, certainly not to the point that I'd spend $25 on one. I likely wouldn't bother with it even if it were available via gameplay. However, I am not short-sighted enough to presume that there aren't others out there who *would* want something like that, nor self-centered enough to say "oh well, doesn't matter to me since I don't want it". And, frankly, I think Blizzard making it avail only through purchase, not to mention the price, sucks. It's a blatant cash grab.
Perhaps it's a side-effect, or a symptom of the "solo only" and "lone hero" mentality that's taken hold of many players in newer MMOs, but this whole "if it doesn't affect me, then it doesn't affect anyone else either" mentality is very indicative of how "me-centric" many people are in these games.
To those who say "meh... It's a mount... only fluff... doesnt' affect me, so I think it's fine they charge for it", I have a question... and please answer it honestly, should anyone answer it at all. If Blizzard introduced a piece of armor, or a weapon, or trinket, or something with some kind of unique, useful ability or benefit that *did* affect gameplay, but was *only* available by buying it for $25 and had no in-game means of obtaining it, would you be so permissive of it then? Would you think "it's fine"? I would wager most wouldn't. After all, it's easy to be dismissive of something when it doesn't affect you. When it does affect you, however... well... that's a whole different story.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion but its just sad when people gloss over just how bad their opinion makes them look to someone on the outside looking in. To the guy above crying about the charity pet, $1,110,000 of that money went to the Make a Wish foundation. That's 1.1 million dollars going to help brighten the lives of people who need an uplifting experience the most. If you added up every cent that you and every member of your whole family ever donated in their combined lives and threw in every penny every one of those people's friends donated in their entire lives to charity it would be closer to zero than 1.1 million. How much did you donate to Make A Wish last year bro?(and by bro I mean a myriad of words that will get me banned from this site)...
I concede that it would have been better for them to give more of a percentage of the proceeds away but when the total is more money than some people make in a lifetime, complaints against them sound like anger just looking for an outlet.
I think few of us are making a billion dollars a year. I know I would be doing a lot for charity if I was.
One's generosity is measured as a percentage of what one has.
Blizzard only donated that money for a few months. They still sell the pet.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Comments
We are. I'm noting how the line can be drawn between the two, and by not being outspoken then, it's a little late to be outspoken now concerning cash-shopping.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
In the words of P.T. Barnum "there is a sucker born every minute" In this case sounds like a lot of them.
Now that wow is doing it, eq2 is doing it, I am sure Warner will now due it (not calling it Tubine any more they sold out)
Overall an interesting piece and I agree with his general view of the whole affair but...
Justin seems to treat gamers and the press as one and the same:
The gaming press seemed to be mesmerized by the sparkly nature of the Steed, and essentially didn’t notice what had just happened – Blizzard got a free pass. In fact, the overall tone was one of patronizing affection: “Look, the silly players got iddy-biddy horseys. That’s so cute”. And herein lies the double standard.
If any other game had done this, they would have been crucified.
-----
What Blizzard has managed to do is to take a concept abhorrent to many gamers and make it palatable.
But they're obviously not.
If Blizzard got a 'free pass' from the press, it's not like mmorpg.com are shining paragons of journalistic integrity. They are far from it. As in any press, there's a certain degree of self-serving bias in the mmo press eg. desire to keep on mmo developers' good side for exclusive interviews, desire to get a job in the mmo development etc. etc. Which is why no even mildly astute reader believes everything they read.
And I'm not sure exactly how biased this press is anyway. Good press is supposed to report facts and preferably without bias. The fact is the steed is sparkly and it has sold well. Those are concrete facts which can safely and quickly be put in print. The effect it's had on the game's community etc. is harder to nail down.
The supposed "double standard" may even be the complete opposite of what you see it to be. It may be being reported in this fashion precisely to get the kind of reaction (i.e. outrage) that they've gotten from you and many others.
"If any other game had done this, they would have been crucified." and "Blizzard gets treated differently from every other developer in the press because they’re just so slick. You could argue that they’ve earned it, but game journalists should at least be talking about the fact that WoW just became an RMT game."
I'm glad that it was pointed out. I considered WoW to have turned RMT when they started with the pets, this though comfirms it. I really don't care at all one way or the other about cash shops but it's nice to see someone else point it out.
Some of us did speak out back then.
The idea of money going to charity does make one feel all warm and fuzzy. But I worked briefly in the the profit-from-charity industry and it's ugly.
It's often referred to as the 'charity pet' but only half of those profits went to charity. It is obviously good when money goes to charity - but I also find it a bit disturbing when private industry profits from it.
Like the recent trend in charity is not to ask for one-off donations but to get people to sign up to donate $30 a month on their credit card. The very fine-print that they hope you don't look at is that not a single cent goes to charity until you've donated $30 a month for a bit over 2 years. All of that money goes to private companies who manage these schemes.
What Blizzard did was worse though. They pocketed over a million dollars from that scheme and most of that would have been pure profit.
It's actually kind of where they started. Back in the planning stages WoW was originally to be a free-to-play game. But they crunched the numbers and just couldn't see it working so they opted for a subscription.
But WoW really is turning into the doomsday scenario. The pro-MT crowd cry "it's only fluff and it's cheap" when the little MTs are added and the anti-MT crowd cry "that's just where it starts".
What I think is especially hypocritical is the way everyone jumped down Allods throat just a month ago for having prices like this. The Russians should have stuck to their capitalist guns instead of caving in.
EQ2 beat WoW on this one - didn't SOE drop cash shops into EQ and EQ2 a couple of years ago without warning?
"Hmmm, sounds like something you’d do if your next MMO is going to be free-to-play."
*Dingle-lingle*
It makes my want to twist my evil moustache in respect. I didn't even think about how they did the TCG thing long before SWG did, and far more successfully. This *has* been a weaning process.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Here's an analogy that fits in this situation:
Chairman Mao was incredibly smart in the way that he changed China. He was very strategic. Did he change China for the better? That's just personal opinion.
Blizzard is being very strategic in releasing this celestial steed. Has the steed changed WoW for the better? That's just personal opinion.
This statement is false.
All they had to do was make the mount BOE. That's all they had to do...
If it were BOE, then people could sell it on the AH, and the complaints about double-dipping would have had no ground. Not only that, but if they expanded on that idea and sold a variety of cosmetic items on the item shop, all of which were BOE and could be sold on the AH, they'd be killing two birds with one stone.
First, people who don't want to work in-game will have an avenue to drop some extra cash and get that item. But second and more importantly, if someone wants to buy gold for some reason, there's no need to use a 3rd-world company anymore. Just buy something off of the blizzard store, and sell it on the AH. Problem solved.
They could even sell game time-cards on the shop that would be usable in-game. That way you're also helping the subscription situation, where some people could "work" in-game for gold, and buy a 30-day card on the AH. Blizzard still gets their money, and the players are happy.
But no... they had to sell exclusive items. This is just greedy double-dipping, and will do nothing but tarnish their otherwise excellent name. Can anyone even estimate the long-term damage this will do to the Blizzard name?
I know it definitely hurt their image in my mind. And their Starcraft2 tripple-dipping scheme doesn't help either.
I am absolutely sure that it will end up speaking for itself. Either all three versions are awesome as standalones, and have a decent length (god help them if it's over in a few hours a piece), or it may be the most loathed product from blizz yet. It's not going to stop people from buying all 3, but the vast majority is simply not going to, especially after tasting one and not liking it.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Great article.
BLizzard /Activizion will keep pushing this further. Personally they are going alot faster than I expected. This mount is after all an item that has unique features that no other item in the game has. And it is DIRECTLY affecting gameplay cause you will not need to buy any other mount in the game.... ever !! And once it was acutally some acomplishment to get a mount...
Whats next ? WHy not items that level up with you ? Green or even blue valued? Im not sure... but this store is not created for just 4 items. It is created for much much more and bigger things. You can count on that.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
So much fail. 10% of my monthly proceeds is more of a SACRIFICE than 1 million in raw numbers... for a game that boasts 1 billion in revenue (1 per mille?). But hey, let there be a sliding scale because someone pushes more raw volume, not mass per volume.
Keep the blinders on. How are taxes tallied? Oh, based on someone's income, which is ratio'ed against a national average (hi percentage!), of which calculations are done (those calculations being percentages), to obtain a raw number on the output. Seems to me like percentages ARE the measuring stick, because it's a standard that can apply to any and everyone in any bracket of life.
My statement stands. It's insulting to claim charity, and give short of 100% of the net profit. They use the word to trigger emotions by the consumer, but it's not the purpose nor cause of their product.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Well I know what I'm "outraged" about - though that would be too strong a word for it for me. A better word would be disgusted or disappointed.
Disappointed at how the genre is slowly but surely making a steady turn away from being about achievement through playing, and moving toward acqusition by paying. Try as I might to keep an open mind to it, I can not understand the attraction nor mentality behind skipping the gameplay aspect of a *game*, and instead just wanting to buy things outright.
What's wrong with charging $25 for a mount - besides being charged on top of a subscription, plus a game and at least 3 expansions?
- It's more than half the cost of a stand-alone expansion, or many games - for a single item.
- The item *could* have been presented through actual gameplay, such as a quest line, a difficult fight... something done *in-game* to earn the mount as a reward at the end - you know... by actually *playing* the game. Instead, Blizzard have said "Screw that... Want the mount? $25. Pay up suckas".
- There is no in-game alternative (that I'm aware of) to acquire the mount, so if you want it... you have to pay up. Can't afford it due to budgets? Oh well.. Too bad. Welcome to the world of "have-nots".
Were there at least a way to acquire the mount through gameplay for those who want one but don't have the extra cash to buy it... fine. But then the $25 price-tag might not be so "reasonable" to as many people, would it? They could simply earn it in game... and that just wouldn't be as profitable for Blizzard.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I've been reading MMORPG for quite a while now, and I have to say, I'm a little appalled at what seems barely above plagarism in this news post.
Frankly, I agree with the post and most of the views it represents, but I couldn't help but feel like I'd read it before... oh wait, I pretty much did. Right down to the word choice and post organization, Webb's article bears striking similarity to Brennan's. From my perspective, this article is a joke, and brings Webb's credibility as a writer into question. I expect better of my news sources than to publish such an obviously "inspired" article without a solid nod to a similarly "inspirational" source.
Now maybe that seems like an overreaction at first, but then I look at when these articles were posted. Massively reported on this exact same phenomena over a week and a half ago, yet Webb claims in his article that the rest of the video game press is pretty much oblivious to the fact that Blizzard is being praised by its players for doing something that would put any one of a hundred other MMOs in its grave.
So I'm calling you out on the same double standard you're calling out the players on. In a day and age of this kind of global communication, I expect better of the associated video game press than to ignore the accomplishments of one another, and pretend to be oblivious in the face of brethren site reporting on the exact same issue over a week before you did.
If CNN were to report on "breaking news" a week and a half after the BBC reported the exact same story, using identical word choice, article organization, and phrasing, but without putting out a nod to the BBC for picking up on it first, there would be media outcry for the blunder. But MMORPG can get away with it, apparently. No big deal, right?
Normally MMORPG is much better about this. You've been man enough in the past to link to your competitors sites in the past when they get cool interviews or catch news stories when your columnists were busy doing their jobs elsewhere. So why not this time? Why was this article not written with consideration to the associated press? I hope you can rise to the expectations of your readers and news community, MMORPG, because you've just lowered your own bar for acceptible conduct.
OMG CHILL OUT Justin! This streed doesnt do anything better than you can aquire with ingame gold.It doesnt make a player better in PVP or help his gear score. If you dont want to buy them , DONT. You are acting like the NRA when they took FULL AUTO Maching guns away from the public and thought the next day you wouldnt be able to even own a gun. or are you just trying to stir the pot to get responces out of us (which makes you no better than Blizzard)?
I played WoW from late beta until around 6 months before BC. Picked up BC and played it until around October 2008. After the introduction of the TCG with in-game prizes, daily quests to strictly regulate how quickly you could attain in-game rewards, and some comments the devs made in the forums, it seemed to me that they were no longer interested in creating the the best gaming experience around, merely trying to keep players on the hook for another month and/or TCG pack (and another and another and another...).
Last year, I ran into this article ( http://www.gamespot.com/news/6226758.html ), in which Activision Blizzard CEO Robert Kotick pretty much killed any desire I had to pick up any further Activision Blizzard titles. The moneyshot was this beautiful line, "The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."
I'm not surprised that they have started adding straight cash shop items to WoW (as opposed to just the TCG items) - I am surprised it took them this long to do so.
It would seem that Mr. Kotick has had his WoW minions hard at work, trying to find new ways of not only taking "all the fun out of making video games", but also out of playing them.
Okay I’m going to be the voice of dissention here. Paying 25 50 or 100 dollars does not mean you have “Money” It means you are willing to spend cash on something other people aren’t. The notion of it being anything but that is sheer ignorance The article was the biggest whine fest I have seen in quite some time and basically boils down to, I’m a 40 man epeener who is pissed because someone doesn’t have to shit in socks to have something nice.
Seriousley Get the fuck over yourself.
And No I did not buy the mount, I chose not to.....that's the great thing, it's a choice.
Here is what I think WOW tried to sell the masses, this is the original pony they had in mind > http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ef4c3a6dc8/dildocorn-pony-my-little-pony-trailer
Responding to your post, Rampage, but answering the blue bit in particular, because I've seen the same argument made by many others. So, this post is in response to any who have put forth that point-of-view....
My issue with that blue bit is the short-sightedness it demonstrates.
What of those who *enjoy* collecting things like mounts, but prefer to do so by playing the game? Or don't have the excess cash to spend on such a thing? What of those who would rather obtain it through actual gameplay - you know that thing you're supposed to find in a *game*? What if they'd rather complete a quest line, or fell some tough enemy, or "tame" the animal to make it a mount, or some other in-game activity to receive it as the reward at the end? They don't matter? Their sub fee doesn't entitle them as much to the content they enjoy as yours does? Their entertainment should be set at a higher price tag, and that's okay, because it doesn't affect you?
There are a significant number of people out there for whom PvP stats and uber gear are not their prime motivation in playing a MMO. There are many out there who play MMOs for the social element.. They enjoy collecting things, like mounts, or pets. That's what is fun to them. They pay the same subscription fee you pay. To a number of them, having no option but to spend $25 - on top of their sub fee - on a single mount that they can't obtain otherwise very likely *is* a big deal.
I'm not particularly interested in "collecting" mounts myself, certainly not to the point that I'd spend $25 on one. I likely wouldn't bother with it even if it were available via gameplay. However, I am not short-sighted enough to presume that there aren't others out there who *would* want something like that, nor self-centered enough to say "oh well, doesn't matter to me since I don't want it". And, frankly, I think Blizzard making it avail only through purchase, not to mention the price, sucks. It's a blatant cash grab.
Perhaps it's a side-effect, or a symptom of the "solo only" and "lone hero" mentality that's taken hold of many players in newer MMOs, but this whole "if it doesn't affect me, then it doesn't affect anyone else either" mentality is very indicative of how "me-centric" many people are in these games.
To those who say "meh... It's a mount... only fluff... doesnt' affect me, so I think it's fine they charge for it", I have a question... and please answer it honestly, should anyone answer it at all. If Blizzard introduced a piece of armor, or a weapon, or trinket, or something with some kind of unique, useful ability or benefit that *did* affect gameplay, but was *only* available by buying it for $25 and had no in-game means of obtaining it, would you be so permissive of it then? Would you think "it's fine"? I would wager most wouldn't. After all, it's easy to be dismissive of something when it doesn't affect you. When it does affect you, however... well... that's a whole different story.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
interesting read and where can i get a skeletor my little pony?
I think few of us are making a billion dollars a year. I know I would be doing a lot for charity if I was.
One's generosity is measured as a percentage of what one has.
Blizzard only donated that money for a few months. They still sell the pet.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2