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

Reader Comments (210)

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 2:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
FYI:

25$ is a fraction of the investment that people have already put into this game in the more then 5 years that it's been released. If people want to spend 25$ on a mount that they likely feel they're going to have for years to come.. it's easily worth it.

Just speaking for myself and my payment history for this game:

I've played WoW since day 1. That's over 5 years and 4 months
2 15.95$ per month = 1020$.
Collectors Ed WoW = 80$
Collectors Ed Burning Crusade = 80$
Collectors Ed Lich King = 80$
That's 1260.00$

Another 25$ isn't much considering what I've spent so far.

Also, it looks cool.

Posted: Apr 18th 2010 6:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You are the type of player that Blizzard knows will plop out the cash for this item.
The amount of time and money you have invested show that you plan on keeping your sub going for quite some time more, so the purchase is justified.
Why not fork over more money to them.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 2:50PM Arkanaloth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
a *big* key to all of this MT stuff is simply deciding when you've gotten your money's worth. A lot of people are thinking that the mount, because it costs real money, will make it harder for people to quit but I disagree... the sub fee is real money too and after a few years of play for many the mount cost will seem like a drop in the ocean, so things like that will not affect weather or not someone may drop WoW in the future.

I played WoW for about.. 3 years or so.. something like that, quit last May. There was plenty left unfinished but I'd reached what I considered the limits of what I could accomplish in the time to play that I had. *that* is when someone truly quits a game.. it's not the rage quit, it's not vast P.O.'ed announcements across forum boards world wide, it's when the sensation of "well I guess that's all I can do" sets in after farming for a few months on end and asking the question "why am I farming?" and not coming up with a good enough answer.

So this mount isn't really going to do anything to the WoW player other than make them get it or wish they could and save up. It's mostly the people not playing WoW that look at the mount cost.. and the sub fee.. and think.. "eh!?!?" But really.. that mount isn't aimed at the non-WoW player anyway. As my graphic design teacher always said: "Know your target audience." Love them or not you can't deny that Blizz knows their players.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 2:52PM archipelagos said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't usually say this in reference to Sera's columns but this once I have to say: what utter nonsense. Any brief glance at the official WoW boards and you will see thread upon thread of people complaining about this new addition. Are there people buying it in silly amounts? Yup. But there's a load of people unhappy about it too. To say it's mainly all rainbows and sparkles over at WoW land over this is silly.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 2:58PM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My apologies Arch. I tried to make that more apparent in the post (that it's not all sunshine and rainbows) but I guess I failed. That subject got a whole paragraph in the initial draft, but that paragraph got cut because I felt I had already gotten that feeling across.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 7:04PM archipelagos said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can understand where you're coming from with wanting to tackle this topic Sera, it's a fascinating subject and there is probably a degree of 'it's Blizz! that means it's okay!' about the whole affair (very similar to the whole 'it's Bioware! nothing they do can be bad!' syndrome.)

*hugs* Keep up the good fight with the topics.
Reply

Posted: Apr 17th 2010 1:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would love just a faction of those "rainbow and sparkles". I highly suspect that champagne bottles are popping open and activism executives are taking money baths right about now.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 2:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You don't see the difference between a graphical upgrade for a mount and storage space or a respec of your skills? Hint: the last two can qualitatively affect your game play the first is something pretty that duplicates functionality most players already have.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 2:59PM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Mount removes the cost of buying mounts for all future alts. It still does have an effect, albeit a minor one.

I think the stronger point here is that these other companies were offering more for less money. As you said, a respec or a bag upgrade have impacts on gameplay, yet they were cheaper. Why should a mount be so expensive?
Reply

Posted: Apr 20th 2010 3:02PM frozndevl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Seraphina

I am a wow player, but I have not purchased the mount. I might buy it for my gf if she picks up the game again, but anyways. The difference here to me is comparing milk & eggs to chocolate. Milk & eggs are considered staples of a healthy diet, required to live. However, chocolate is a luxury item and you buy that when you can afford to. Using this comparison, respecs and bag space are what I consider necessities and the vanity mount is chocolate.

Staple foods tend to have a lower unit price because they are essential and some-what commoditized, whereas luxury goods tend to have a higher price. I think that is all we are seeing here, not a bastardization of the MC model.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:00PM Eamil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can't say I agree here. Unless you've spotted a large rash of the same people spouting different opinions, there's no "double standard" here. There's ALWAYS been a divided opinion on MTs - just because you haven't seen it here doesn't mean that's not the case. The STO forums were fairly evenly divided on their opinions of the C-store as I recall.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:02PM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Then I apologize, as whenever I went to the STO forums, all I could see were just angry, angry threads. Like poisonous threads against the C-Store.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:05PM Eamil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hm, when was this? I honestly stopped paying attention to the forums sometime last month, but within that time frame I remember a lot of angry posts and a lot of defenders.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Plus, I wouldn't have a problem with this mount if it was 5 bucks or something"

That in itself is hypocritical. You no longer reject the notion of selling a digital item , so long as the price is right. What was it about double standards?

If you want content, you buy it and you pay monthly to access it. A mount sure isn't an expansion by any stretch of the mind, but as in the EULA, you're paying for access to your characters, expansions and whatever else you want to purchase that Blizzard offers within the realms of WoW. ( like vanity items )

You do not own your characters, you do not own the mount. You're paying for access to them. Just as you do when you fork over cash to buy your account and the expansions, you're only paying for access to digital content. Granted you do get additional physical merchandise, yet it's funny how you don't see people complaining about the differences of people buying the regular boxed set and the collector's edition which give you similar items of no use other than just for looks, such as art books. ZOMG, You're ruining my gaming experience by giving people trading cards!!!

Whatever content Blizzard decides to charge us for is up to them. So as far as it goes, as it has and always will be; If you don't want access to the content, you don't pay for it.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:14PM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It seems you've misunderstood my position, Grim.

For a long time, I have said that I have always approved of microtransactions. (Please see: http://www.massively.com/2010/03/04/anti-aliased-cash-shop-shouldnt-be-a-dirty-phrase/ ) I do not approve of them when I believe they are going outside of the market standards, such as this one which charges a much higher price for a very little payout. A mount, in my mind, is not worth 25 dollars. I do not find that to be a fair price. I'm not against them selling it, I'm against what they believe they can charge for it.

But that's only a tangential point to my main point. My main point is that if another company did this in the exact same way (and they have), then they would be crucified by their player base. Sure, it's not sunshine and rainbows over at Blizzard, but it's a far cry from the usual poison I see when another company does things like this.

What makes this steed different from other microtransactions? The point is that it's not, and it should come under the same amount of fire. Why doesn't it?

And I'm not asking that question rhetorically, I honestly want to know. Tell me your opinion.
Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why can Blizzard charge more? One simple word, one extremely elaborate notion that, to this day, still bedazzles and amazes those with superfluous-oriented standards; Branding.

Blizzard is prestigious, thus, so are their products. Their swollen, concurrently active pay-to-play acccount base backs that up.

It's the same reason an item with a Nike logo, in parity with the same item with no logo can sell for more. Is there logic? Maybe, but considering that it's defined on a tempermental value of what's mainstream, you can only subject yourself to a beating if you try take either side. Such as you did, such as I will.

Reply

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:07PM Harley Dude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmm 140k is 3.1% of 4.5 mil subs, so apparently not everybody is buying this mount. IMO $25 for a mount is ridiculous, so I guess that's a factor. If it was $5, they'd probably sell a million. I'm not defending Blizzard, I'd prefer these companies would either go you get everything with your $15/month, or go F2P if you want to charge people for cosmetic items.

The issue with Cryptic doing it is twofold. One, The game launched so incomplete that they should be ashamed to be pumping out so much C-store content so soon. Half the items on their upcoming calendar are C-store items. Two, STO was supposed to be no skill cap, and at the last minute added a skill cap in a naked money grab.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
140 000 people x $25.00 = $3 500 000.00. thats 3.5 million dollars!! of pure profit for blizzard and thats just in the first couple of days of release....

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I want to chime my two cents in.

I didn't buy this mount because I didn't think it was worth $25. I'm not a fan of sparkleponies and I make plenty of in game gold to not worry about buying each new character a cute mount.

I did however buy the pet which came with the plushy because I thought it was cute and worth it. Even when I stop playing WoW I feel like it was a nice investment for a cute stuffed animal. I have no problem with non game changing additions. Pets and mounts fall there. Should this move into gear upgrades, levels or other game-affecting items I will change my stance but for now I view these are fun ways for people to "donate" to Blizzard's pockets. They make a personal choice to do this.

You could already buy pets, mounts, and other cute items in a more round about way through the TCG and most of those mounts (which do not scale or give any special ability save epeen) go for AT LEAST $100+, I've seen some at $500 and can only be redeemed on one character. So people may feel a real value being able to buy a mount for $25 that they like and use on all their characters. You still buy the training in game and you get no advantage from it.

And to correct someone 100 comments back, there is ALREADY another mount which can change from sky to land mount (the Headless Horseman's mount) so there's no magical extra ability really. You need to buy the training to get your flying even if you plunk down RL dollars for this. You need to obtain a 310% mount to make it go 310%. There's no benefit to it except that your alts will be able to get at least 1 mount (a total savings of a few gold if you're the cheapest bastard on earth whose decided he's doesn't want ANY OTHER MOUNTS EVAR).

I think MT you need for utility in the game are utter BS. When I pretty much have to buy items to play the f-ing game like bags (because they cost 60 days of grind to get), exp enhancers (like for RO where you can spend years and not hit level cap) or the best gear that's my line in the sand for MTs. Companies want to make money and Blizzard knows that they can do that WITHOUT ruining their carefully built gear system, leveling, and item systems. I believe they don't want to break the game, they just want to make some more money by offering people the shinies.

And really, that's okay. I would like $2 million extra dollars as well.

Posted: Apr 16th 2010 3:11PM Eamil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hah. Just got an email notice that I replied to my own comment. (O_o)

But to be clear, I'm not trying to imply you're lying, we've probably just seen different posts. I will say a lot of the actual threads I've seen were hate threads (not many people are going to start a new thread because they're happy about something in my experience) but they had a fair share of people jumping in to defend MTs.

I'd also argue that if you want to compare on the basis of forum rage, WoW and STO are about even. I'm actually kind of surprised at what you said about WoW.com's article (I did forget about that when I made my initial response, and that does strike me as really strange), given the way I've seen comments there go in the past I would have expected their comments to mirror the current state of the WoW forums, i.e. full of fanboys on one side and nerd rage on the other.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW