| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (210)

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 1:18PM Arkanaloth said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
personally my only real issue are games with MT's AND sub fees.. one or the other.. not both, so on that level the blizzard mount bugs me (not that I play WoW anyway) but at least the thing is account-wide instead of locked to a single character... but 25 bones is just a bit steep.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 2:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
What makes it acceptable when it's Blizzard? It's because it's a company that actually listens to its subscribers but doesn't let them design the game. It's because it's a company that doesn't put out a title when it isn't ready or rush a product out just to get box sales. When I put down money for a Blizzard product or item, I know that most of that money will go into content development which I am going to enjoy a few years down the line.

I know there are a lot of theories about how the Activision monster will eat away at Blizzard's values but I haven't seen that happening so far and I'll gladly put down money for an item that interests me. I won't buy plushies because they don't interest me, I won't buy the TCG stuff for the same reason. But this mount? Hell yes; I don't care if everyone has one. I'm not buying it hoping it'll be rare. If I want to fly around on a rare mount, I'll use my Icecrown frost wyrm. I just find this mount to be cool and I'll gladly pay money for it. Those that do their /facepalm at that just because you can't afford to buy it at the moment or because you don't think it's worth it, here's a thought: the world doesn't revolve around you and your opinion doesn't matter to me.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 2:27PM Arkanaloth said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
For an opinion that doesn't matter to you.. you sure jumped into the defensive real fast. Secondarily it doesn't matter who the company is.. *I* (yes imagine that.. an opinion on a blog response) have issues with MT's AND Sub Fee's in the same game what *YOU* do is entirely up to you, but when I last checked there was nothing wrong with stating an opinion where I live.

I've bought my fair share of RoM mounts but there's no sub fee and I did point out that the blizzard mount is account wide.. that makes it a lot easier to accept since it frees up any future alts from needing to spend money on a mount at all (nothing wrong with less grinding), but I still think the price is too high, they could shave it about 10$ and still make out like bandits...

Also I never mentioned anything about Activision and I'm not quite sure why you even brought that up, I personally have zero issues with them as a company. I always believed the Activision / Blizzard thing was a smart business move and I've been surprised more publishers haven't followed suit.

MT's are the wave of the future, anybody that doesn't see that coming is likely in for quite a nasty rude awakening, but quite a few games have proven it's possible to have a MT system without sub fees at all and be pretty successful. I fully understand that servers don't maintain themselves but come on, dropping a 25$ mount into a game with a full size sub fee.. it may not be a royal screwing (it is account wide afterall) but IMO (there's that opinion thing again) it's certainly a bit of wool over the eyes.

Upside to all this is the mount is not *required* to play but at this rate it won't be long before some game comes along with a sub where store items become a must have to play, nobody has gone there yet but the vast revenue generated from this mount and games like RoM and the total redefinition and invigoration of DDO is almost an invitation for someone in the future to at least try.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 4:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I guess in your book it's me being defensive when I just post what I think in what I consider to be a fairly neutral way. Whatever floats your boat I suppose. I also find it interesting that you thought I was writing my entire post pointedly at you when in fact, even looking at it now it's kinda clear that most of the post was a general response to the skeptical or downright hostile opinions floating around on the various forums as well as blog sites like this one. If you felt like I was singling you out specifically, it may be a sign that in the future I need to write in such a way that shows it is not so.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 4:17PM Arkanaloth said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
and I quote:

"here's a thought: the world doesn't revolve around you and your opinion doesn't matter to me."

that's pretty defensive wouldn't you say, and as it was posted as a "reply" to *MY* quite opinion driven post and not a general reply to the blog, how else am I to take it as anything less than a comment directed squarely at yours truly?

that said if you intended it to be a general response and accidentally clicked the reply button under my post as opposed to simply typing in the reply window... well oops, but then again you can hardly fault me for getting the wrong idea with absolutely nothing else presented as evidence to refute the notion.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 6:07PM drunkenpandaren said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
"that makes it a lot easier to accept since it frees up any future alts from needing to spend money on a mount at all"

lol implying that you spend money on a mount at all.

Getting a mount for an alt is like 2 days of dailies. And that's like, casual dailies where you're only doing the JC and fishing one when it's in Dal. Mounts in WoW is pocket change for any 80.

derp derp
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 1:12PM Thac0 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I agree about the entire not understanding this double standard thing; its really odd.

But I am horrified at the acceptance of this item and the fact that this set a precedent for more items to be sold at this price that give players advantages in all games. This is very bad news.

I just got used to Cryptic's C-Store and find it OK since they are selling cosmetic items and respecs but this....

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 1:24PM toychristopher said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Me too. The incredible demand for this mount (which btw, I don't even think looks that well done) definitely means that the blizzard store is going to be stocked with more items like this in the future.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 4:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Exactly, it's the ready acceptance to hand over money for something like this that annoys me too. It makes me worry about the direction of the video games industry in general. Already it's at the point where not having some sort of microtransaction store in your game, whether it's a subscription based game or F2P or even DLC for non-MMOs, which I consider a microtransaction, would be completely idiotic since it's so easy to generate extra revenue, even if only a small percentage use it. If you think TOR isn't going to utilize the same kind of thing then you are kidding yourself, other game developers pay attention when idiots throw away $25 for a mount or $15 for 5 maps.
Reply

Posted: Apr 17th 2010 10:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"I agree about the entire not understanding this double standard thing; its really odd. "

I don't agree about this double-standard thing, more directly, I don't agree that there was ever a massive consensus of WoW players who said they hated the idea, but now are buying it.

What did Sera put in her Cheerios? If she's got any more, I want a pinch or two, because she adds up '1' and '2' and gets 'Jeff'.

There are more than 1 MMO, yes? Why would there be more than 1? Well, perhaps they have different audiences? Perhaps they appeal to different types of people, so one group of comments on one site doesn't necessarily imply that those opinions hold for all people everywhere?

Points Sera brought up to support the idea that a 'double standard' exists:

1. The Massively commenters didn't like it, so obviously no one anywhere would.

I don't know what say to this. If you honestly believe this, please stop reading now, because I can't help.


2. WoW.com's own poll is '..pretty much in favor of the mount being in the store."

Last time I checked, about 8% difference between 'agree' and 'disagree' doesn't show a massive consolidation of opinion. Add to that the fact that over a quarter of the people who answered that poll chose "don't care". What that means is that, of the readers of WoW.com, only about 75% have any opinion at all about the mount, and of those people, they're split nearly even with a majority liking it. That isn't really 'pretty much in favor of'... that's more like 'a little more than half of 3/4 of the WoW.com audience is in favor of' (that's 1/2*3/4 = 3/8 of the WoW.com audience, which is actually a minority, and not 'pretty much' anything really). Check for yourself, just hit 'vote' without selecting a radio button and you can see the numbers for yourself:
http://www.wow.com/2010/04/15/poll-selling-the-celestial-steed-is/

3. WoW.com's comments aren't angry about the mount in the right ways:
"Even the naysayers in that thread are different."

Yes. WoW.com has a different audience than Massively.com. Perhaps... they have a different view. In order for a double standard to exist, you need to have a majority group holding one position for most things, and a different/opposite one for a few special cases for no apparent reason.
I would think that Massively's audience would have larger views over multiple MMOs, and possibly WoW.com's audience would have a much more focused view on just WoW. Maybe a group of people who play many MMOs wouldn't like it, when a group a people who play one MMO would. This isn't a double standard, because it isn't the same group of people saying two different things... it's two different groups of people, with different interests and focuses, saying different things. It's not a double standard, it's two standards.

4. 140,000 people bought it, that's so many people that it must be really popular no matter what WoW players say decrying it.

140,000, yes that is a lot. What is WoW's total subscription rate though? Let's lowball it and say 12 million. What percentage of WoW's subscription base would 140,000 be? About 1%. Yes... one percent. Even if a million people buy the mount, that's not even 10% of WoW's subscription base. Actually, I'd say that only 140,000 people buying it would show how unpopular it was.

I don't see where this whole 'double standard' nonsense is coming from. For the very first mount ever offered in the Blizzard store (which is account bound... and pretty ;^) ), I think the response seems rather muted. If you still have hundreds of thousands of people buying it next week, yes, maybe it is popular. I won't be buying it, I've stopped playing games in the past when they were free and went micro-pay, but keep in mind that WoW has more subscribers than 46 of the 50 states in the US have people. That's a lot of people, and a lot of opinions. Not all of them post on sites, and not all of them vote on polls, and not all of them are in the same country, or hemisphere.

Where is the double standard? I don't see it. If you ask a group of over 12 million people if they want to buy something, no matter what it is, you'll get at least some of them buying it. Add in the novelty, usefulness, the pretty factor, and I think that the response is pretty predictable. I don't like the thing myself, but I can understand that in such a large group there will inevitably be a lot of people who would. I don't think the 2nd mount will sell as well, maybe 80% of the 1st. The 3rd they make will likely sell about 30% to 50% as well as the 1st. Once Blizz puts up the 5th mount, they'll likely only get about 10% of the amount of original buyers buying it.

1+2 does not equal Jeff. However, if you see a double standard here, I have a bridge that I'd love to sell you.
Reply

Posted: Apr 20th 2010 2:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Eisengel

I know you probably won't see this, but in case you do, I agree 100% on everything you said. I posted a two part blog on this at http://nerdraaaage.blogspot.com/

check it out
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 1:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree entirely. Hypocrisy is rife in the MMO world when it comes to RMT and cash shops. I seem to remember people declaring the 'freemium' model DDO has taken to be the death knell for that game. How wrong they were.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 1:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Here's the problem with offering that a double standard exists.

You are :

A - Assuming these people clamering for the mount are the same people disgusted with another company's microtransaction
B - Assuming these same people know that there are F2P with microtransaction.
C - Assuming these people have even an inkling of a want to try any other games or have tries any other games than WoW

There is no double standard here, as the people paying for the horse are certainly not people that go out of their way to complain about microtransaction in another game.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:12PM whateveryousay said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"There is no double standard here, as the people paying for the horse are certainly not people that go out of their way to complain about microtransaction in another game"

Sounds like you're doing some assuming of your own there, slappy.
Reply

Posted: Apr 17th 2010 9:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I suspect Nuit is making a fair assumption. And, more to the point, Seraphina is also making an assumption. In order for there to be a "double standard," the same people must be both happily buying the mount and qqing about MTs. She doesn't know that that's the case any more than Nuit knows it isn't.

I suspect Nuit's assumption is closer to the truth, given the echo chamber nature of these kinds of forums. I seriously doubt that the same people ragequitting over Allod's item store and ranting about it on game forums are the ones clamoring for Blizzard's new pony.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 1:19PM Deadalon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The intresting part about this new mount is that you actually will need to buy ingame mounts at all. So... Blizzard is not only selling a mount - they are also selling ingame gold that you will save if you had to buy a "real" ingame mount.

But who cares... its not like getting a mount in MMO game is that inresting. Just ask Cryptic - they give you spaceships - but... you might have to pay extra for some factions.

The intresting part about this all ... What will be the next thing in the mall ? New race ? Third spec option ? Cool dye to change that bloody ugly green armor ?

oh wait .... Bigger boobs !!!!! .... On my mount !!! .. no ...

sorry.. I got to exited there!

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 1:20PM Deadalon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Correction - you DONT need to buy ingame mounts if you buy that 25 USD one !
Reply

Posted: Apr 17th 2010 10:31AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seriously? I thought you had to buy some kind of in-game mount, and it would just auto-replace it with the celestial steed, picking up it stats. If indeed this completely obviates the need to buy in-game mounts...then I'd have to say, from a gameplay perspective, this is WoW's "Jumping the Shark" moment.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 1:47PM zomd said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"So, let's recap. 20 dollar backpack expansion from Allods Online: Bad. 10 dollar respec in Champions Online: Terribly bad. 25 dollar mount in World of Warcraft: OMGEPICMUSTBUYT3HPRETTY!!!!!1@2. Also, the latter comes with odd amounts of drooling, seizures, and compulsive credit card stroking."

You don't see the difference between items that have an effect on gameplay (respecs, backpacks) and aesthetic items like this mount? The complaint about cryptic's respecs in the store was in direct response to the ingame grind for a respec as a means of pushing people into buying one through the c-store for a game they are already paying a subscription for.

I think the WoW mount is way overpriced and I wish people understood the real cost of making these aesthetic items so they can get a sense of the amount of work they are paying for and I don't like the precedent this sets for WoW, but it's a world away from locking quality of life features behind expensive "micro" transactions designed to force the player into price gouged purchases.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 1:28PM Deadalon said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
THe mount affects the gameplay - You will not have to buy ingame mounts at all and you will safe yourself ingame gold.

So ye...I do not see the diffrence betweein the mount I buy in Runes of Magic (note I can also lease one for ingame gold) and this new WOW mount. The only diffrence is maybe that I only have to pay 10 USD for the one in ROM. And I can actually play it whenever I want - WITHOUT paying extra money in sub !
Reply

Featured Stories

Make My MMO: September 14 - 20, 2014

Posted on Sep 20th 2014 6:00PM

Perfect Ten: Terrible, terrible MMO names

Posted on Sep 20th 2014 3:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW