While that may be true, that is still far ahead in the future, a lot farther away than microtransactions. What I don't understand however is why game developers don't profit off the amount of people willing to buy in-game gold, and just create an in-game economy that can support it.
Why? Because thats just too easy an answer (and also means that the 500g you spent to have a blacksmith make you a sword, which he then kept, is now equal to $20 and now he's liable for theft.)
In any game that constitutes scamming. In terms of the TOS and EULA, it's generally against the rules in an MMO to scam any other player of any in-game items.
In World of Warcraft for example, it is a ban-able offense, and generally restitution is made to the player who was scammed. Especially since they have records of the trade occurring generally.
For example, the SWTOR microtransaction TOS.
(I) You acknowledge and agree that all items acquired for points during the Game Program are non-refundable and non-tradable.
(K) You acknowledge and agree that BWA reserves the right to change/add/remove points rewarded in the Game store at any time and without warning. (M) You acknowledge and agree that points acquired during the Game Program cannot be saved up for or used in the commercial version of the Game.
Do you think they get charged for theft for removing the in-game points/
That isn't a valid argument against it, please find another.
I would have respected Blizzard more if they chose to give 100% of the money to charity instead of 50%. And at this point in time, I have to admit that I do not like the idea of indroducing item malls into games that already have a subscription fee. However, as long as they do not start to sell game breaking items that put other people at a far advantage over me, I will not worry.
I would have respected Blizzard more if they chose to give 100% of the money to charity instead of 50%. And at this point in time, I have to admit that I do not like the idea of indroducing item malls into games that already have a subscription fee. However, as long as they do not start to sell game breaking items that put other people at a far advantage over me, I will not worry.
I'm actually really impressed that they convinced the execs to donate that much in the first place.
"These pets offer absolutely no bonuses or in-game advantages of any kind"
Actually it does offer advantages in the achievement system, people that live for the achievements in this game (a large amount of people in my guild) are having to buy the pet to keep up with the joneses, so it does effect in-game systems.
I wouldn't have any problem at all with blizzard doing this if it didn't effect achievements. Luckily I am not big on achievements though
I enjoyed your post, Jon, except that you have some trouble with your R pressing that makes it come before/after wherever you wanted it to actually be.
*Shakes spelling Nazi fist*
Guys should complain a little, but the amount of "RMT IS THE DEVIL!" arguments I'm hearing is absurd. No wonder no one believes in God anymore - Evangelists and various crazy people trying to back up the religion by crying out about evil just tend to reinforce the opinion that what you're thinking (Eh, minimal vanity RMT) is probably better than being a crazy person (NO RMT BECAUSE IT'S BAD AND WE HATE IT AND MY MUM WON'T GIVE ME $10 TO BUY THE PETS).
Cheers Blizzard, keep making money to produce quality games - even if you do add stupidly large revenue schemes... ($25 for Server Transfers back in the day? Ugh... I did it once and I felt dirty and cheated.)
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
The money making schemes of big business is starting to go to ridiculous lengths. We are starting to see them rear their ugly heads now in MMO's. An example of this but a little off topic, today on the radio I heard that Bon Jovi is coming to town and tickets will be going on sale. If you want to get tickets you will have to buy a digital copy of their new album. The general public will then be able to buy tickets a week later, it it's not already sold out. Is that crazy, or just me?
"These pets offer absolutely no bonuses or in-game advantages of any kind"
Actually it does offer advantages in the achievement system, people that live for the achievements in this game (a large amount of people in my guild) are having to buy the pet to keep up with the joneses, so it does effect in-game systems.
I wouldn't have any problem at all with blizzard doing this if it didn't effect achievements. Luckily I am not big on achievements though
Achievement Unlocked: Mr. Moneybags. [100]
Spent $1000 or more in the Blizzard Store.
Would you really even want that Achievement? If so, why, you retard*?
*Note that I am only calling you, or anyone that, if they really wanted that Achievement.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
Blizzard needs to be very careful here. Trust is a hard thing to re-earn after losing it. If Blizz introduces a full RMT model for things like gear, etc you will hear a "disturbance" that would make SWG NGE or Trammel to UO's outrage seem like a whisper. Players don't forget and seldom forgive. If something like that happens then nevermind about WoW, Blizzard really should be worrying about the success of their next title.
I disagree and i think your wrong about this, there are allot of "grown ups" that are financially secure but dont have the time to "gear" or "level" their characters like most "kiddies" do. There is a MUCH larger number of folks that would embrace RMT, more than the keyboard jockeys that troll these forums.
While that may be true, that is still far ahead in the future, a lot farther away than microtransactions. What I don't understand however is why game developers don't profit off the amount of people willing to buy in-game gold, and just create an in-game economy that can support it.
Why? Because thats just too easy an answer (and also means that the 500g you spent to have a blacksmith make you a sword, which he then kept, is now equal to $20 and now he's liable for theft.)
In any game that constitutes scamming. In terms of the TOS and EULA, it's generally against the rules in an MMO to scam any other player of any in-game items.
In World of Warcraft for example, it is a ban-able offense, and generally restitution is made to the player who was scammed. Especially since they have records of the trade occurring generally.
For example, the SWTOR microtransaction TOS.
(I) You acknowledge and agree that all items acquired for points during the Game Program are non-refundable and non-tradable.
(K) You acknowledge and agree that BWA reserves the right to change/add/remove points rewarded in the Game store at any time and without warning. (M) You acknowledge and agree that points acquired during the Game Program cannot be saved up for or used in the commercial version of the Game.
Do you think they get charged for theft for removing the in-game points/
That isn't a valid argument against it, please find another.
I was referring to two players, not the company and the player. So the SWTOR example has no connection to my example.
I don't think Blizzard would put items in an itemshop that would actually affect the game. Just like they would never lower the subscription fee, even though they have an 11 million player base wich I kind of doubt. No quite the contrary. They rather have you trudge along. That way they can suck up as much money as possible off there player community. To be honest with you World of Warcraft is kind of outdated anyway. From a graphic stand point anyway. Blizzard had some good ideas. But they also had a lot of bad ideas. We'll just have to wait and see on which side of the line this one falls.
P.S:If they really cared about the player base you would some kind of real respose. NOT automated. They would also ask the commuity what content should be add. Not just spring it on them at some cheesey ass cinvention.
I don't think Blizzard would put items in an itemshop that would actually affect the game. Just like they would never lower the subscription fee, even though they have an 11 million player base wich I kind of doubt. No quite the contrary. They rather have you trudge along. That way they can suck up as much money as possible off there player community. To be honest with you World of Warcraft is kind of outdated anyway. From a graphic stand point anyway. Blizzard had some good ideas. But they also had a lot of bad ideas. We'll just have to wait and see on which side of the line this one falls.
P.S:If they really cared about the player base you would some kind of real respose. NOT automated. They would also ask the commuity what content should be add. Not just spring it on them at some cheesey ass cinvention.
But they don't really care about the player base. They care about making a profit. They only care for the customers insofar as it keeps them as subscribers, or generates more subscribers. I swear, some of you seem to think that companies actually "Care". Do you also believe those stupid mortgage and insurance commercials that tell you the companies care?
sijmisterWorld of Warcraft CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 47
All this sensationalism about how the big companies are destroying MMOs is a bit reminiscent of the ultra-conservatives and their assertion that Obama pushing for a public option is the first step to socializing our country: a whole lot of shouting and paranoia, without the facts to support it.
Maybe all of you dissenters should take a cue from Bachman and rally around Blizzard HQ in protest to this first step towards a subscription and RMT model to show your disgust and outrage.
While that may be true, that is still far ahead in the future, a lot farther away than microtransactions. What I don't understand however is why game developers don't profit off the amount of people willing to buy in-game gold, and just create an in-game economy that can support it.
Why? Because thats just too easy an answer (and also means that the 500g you spent to have a blacksmith make you a sword, which he then kept, is now equal to $20 and now he's liable for theft.)
In any game that constitutes scamming. In terms of the TOS and EULA, it's generally against the rules in an MMO to scam any other player of any in-game items.
In World of Warcraft for example, it is a ban-able offense, and generally restitution is made to the player who was scammed. Especially since they have records of the trade occurring generally.
For example, the SWTOR microtransaction TOS.
(I) You acknowledge and agree that all items acquired for points during the Game Program are non-refundable and non-tradable.
(K) You acknowledge and agree that BWA reserves the right to change/add/remove points rewarded in the Game store at any time and without warning. (M) You acknowledge and agree that points acquired during the Game Program cannot be saved up for or used in the commercial version of the Game.
Do you think they get charged for theft for removing the in-game points/
That isn't a valid argument against it, please find another.
I was referring to two players, not the company and the player. So the SWTOR example has no connection to my example.
If the company that sell you the gold cannot be held responsible for taking your money for no reason, how could a player be accounted for it? Clearly you don't know law. You don't own anything in a video game world, so one player taking something from another player, that doesn't have any value in real life (as mentioned MANY MANY times throughout TOS) cannot be stolen and the player cannot be charged with "theft".
I used SW:TOR for my example, because the micro-transaction TOS was readily available to me without having to read-up and cut some out of some other games, so yes, as a probably user of RMT it does connect to your example. As does that of World of Warcraft which I imagine is similar.
The money making schemes of big business is starting to go to ridiculous lengths. We are starting to see them rear their ugly heads now in MMO's. An example of this but a little off topic, today on the radio I heard that Bon Jovi is coming to town and tickets will be going on sale. If you want to get tickets you will have to buy a digital copy of their new album. The general public will then be able to buy tickets a week later, it it's not already sold out. Is that crazy, or just me?
But you have it backwards. Blizzard isn't forcing anyone to buy their pets to gain access to a particular live event going on next week. It's something extra added to the game. How about for the people not happy with it, just pretend like its not there and continue playing the game as usual because you know what? That's a perfectly viable reaction to the store. If you don't like it, ignore it. They are not requiring you to buy anything from this store for expanded access to the game or anything. These are all extras. How ridiculous and childish...think we need to call the "waaaaaghhh-mbulance" on this one.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood uses his column this week to look at the recent announcement that Blizzard will be offering in-game pets for real life money and the fan reaction, or over-reaction to the news. Yesterday, Blizzard announced that they would be adding an in-game shop where players could buy vanity pets, and in characteristic fashion, the MMO world went bat dung crazy. Even my Facebook, which is loaded with MMO folks, was taken over by posts about Blizzard moving to microtransactions. I swear, the way people react to these things you'd think that item stores were Godzilla and Western players were the poor residents of Tokyo just trying to get away from the damned thing, wrecking everything they know and eating everyone they love. For the record, they're not, but we'll leave my personal opinions about item mall based games for another rant entirely. Instead, we'll focus on this particular announcement. Comparing this announcement, by the way, with microtransaction revenue models games, is like comparing apples and zebras. It just doesn't make any sense.
Like many other posters, Jon, I disagree with you that (a) now is not the time to make a fuss, and (b) there is a limited amount of such fuss that companies will really take notice of. I think your article just reflects a personal tolerance for RMT and more generally how much value you personally place on ideals, and idealism. There is very little rational logic or argument going on here.
I cancelled my WoW account a few days ago after playing a month or two and I am now (more happily) playing Fallen Earth. If I was still subscribed to WoW I would have cancelled because of the RMT issue. If RMT ever appears in Fallen Earth I will leave, but I think that will never happen because of the market niche Icarus has aimed for. And really, thank heavens for Icarus.
I generally agree with the article, though I have some asides for it.
The charity angle is a pretty thin cover for the RMT move. Lots of companies donate more proceeds from the sale of specific items to assorted charities. If people actually cared for a given charity, clicking on websites and plugging in credit card info is ridiculously easy these days. Anyone who thinks they are getting these pets for anything but personal vanity is, quite simply, fooling themselves.
This doesn't mean charity is bad. Just that we need to be clear that Blizzard is not simply doing this for the children here. They're doing it to sugar-coat the RMT move. It's nice that they are initially donating some of the sales to charity, but that stops after Dec. 31, after which it goes straight to their pockets.
However, I do agree there's a lot of fury over something that hasn't yet seen any actual implications. Saying that non-combat pets affecting the achievements is a big deal is just plain bunk. Until the non-combat pet achievements give me 310% speed flying mounts or epics, I find it difficult to drum up much sympathy for those crying "Wolf, wolf!" The reward for collecting non-combat pets is... more non-combat pets. Hmm. Don't see how a little skunk that likes to hump black cats is really hurting the game there, folks.
If Blizzard crosses the line from non-combat pets and maybe heirlooms (basically worthless to sell for real money except to first-time players anyway) into actual superior/epic gear and/or emblems and badges, I'll be glad to grab a pitchfork and a torch, and help you all lynch them on every forum, blog, etc. on the web.
Until then, I'll be keeping my tinfoil hat handy, just in case...
...think we need to call the "waaaaaghhh-mbulance" on this one.
Exactly.
I've worked in retail for far too long and one of the harsh lessons that I learned very quickly is that consumers don't stop to think that as a business you are there to make money.
In this topic Blizzard is offering a product in exchange for cash. If you don't like it don't buy it.
If they were doing something like stating that you had to have one or both of these pets to continue your subscription, or that the pets each added a % to your stats for owning them yes my personal opinion would be that it is not cool, but my opinion isn't what counts. What does count is what happens to the business model whether it be bottom line $$ value, projected future income or however they want to measure it.
At the end of the day it is their business and they can make whatever changes they want fair or unfair and if you don't like it then cancel your sub, if you don't have one and were born with Blizzard hate why do you care to comment in the first place.
Things change if the business model takes a hit, not because a blog was written to clarify a situation and 200+ people had a flame war over their opinions on what they think is ethical in how companies choose to make money.
I've worked in retail for far too long and one of the harsh lessons that I learned very quickly is that consumers don't stop to think that as a business you are there to make money.
Actually, they do, and that's how they know when they're being exploited and taken advantage of for that purpose. Businesses make money, but there are many ways to go about that, and many are less ethical than others.
I've worked in retail for far too long and one of the harsh lessons that I learned very quickly is that consumers don't stop to think that as a business you are there to make money.
Actually, they do, and that's how they know when they're being exploited and taken advantage of for that purpose. Businesses make money, but there are many ways to go about that, and many are less ethical than others.
The cute little pandas and liches are really exploiting you? Seriously? Do you feel that obligated to buy one to feel like you are fully experiencing the game? You'll probably forget about all this next week. Again, another extrapolation without reason. If you are going to point out exploitation, at least provide a good reason. Voluntarily being able to buy pointless cosmetic virtual items surely cannot convince you that Blizzard is really forcing you into a situation here as a subscriber -_- Unless you are that easily influenced by the game of course then I would recommend therapy and time off from the game
Blizzard needs to be very careful here. Trust is a hard thing to re-earn after losing it. If Blizz introduces a full RMT model for things like gear, etc you will hear a "disturbance" that would make SWG NGE or Trammel to UO's outrage seem like a whisper. Players don't forget and seldom forgive. If something like that happens then Blizzard really should be worrying about the success of their next title.
I have already crossed off SC2, D3, and the next Blizzard MMO, unless this move is backed away from.
You and other like minded individuals comprise a TINY percentage of the player base. In the grand scheme of things, your presence and money will not be missed. This is trival, and if you allow it to deprive you of the enjoyment of the next few games, you have only yourself to blame.
Devil's advocate: Where is your statistical data that shows what exactly that percentage is? (Rhetorical question as you don't have any)
Fact of the matter is none of us know how this will affect those game sales until they happen and even then there isn't a way to measure how many people would have purchased the games but decided not to because of this move. A look can be taken by Blizzard internally comparing their average weekly or monthly loss of accounts and then compare them to the data gathered after this announcement. Of course, they aren't going to share that information with us if it's negative. If it's positive they will because companies (ahem, SOE) like to pat themselves on the back if a "controversial" move earns a profit.
So if we hear from Blizzard how well the shops do with lots of fireworks and faire, then it worked. Unless they lie to save face. If we don't hear from them, then they lost more account income than the shops could replace. Maybe, lol! Speculation keeps forums alive!
Kahl, I don't need hard data for this... The percentage of people who lapse into hysterics about something this trival has to be smaller than those who win the Darwin award... But yes, emo does keep the forums running...
You know you guys are right. Take all the vanity out of the game and make it only about stats.
This is what happens when you morph a game over the years into catering to the grief fest types. They wont even make a donation to charity for a vanity pet.
Spoiled much?
sijmisterWorld of Warcraft CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 47
Originally posted by Kordesh
Originally posted by BlueSkunk
I've worked in retail for far too long and one of the harsh lessons that I learned very quickly is that consumers don't stop to think that as a business you are there to make money.
Actually, they do, and that's how they know when they're being exploited and taken advantage of for that purpose. Businesses make money, but there are many ways to go about that, and many are less ethical than others.
How is this in any way unethical? No one flamed Nintendo when they made people go to their Pokemon Center in New York to access certain legendary Pokemon, or buy extra accessories to get access to them. That actually affected gameplay. Blizzard will only have crossed the line if they decided to implement items that affected gameplay, or decided to only make new non-combat pets available through their Blizzard Store, or something along those lines. This is no such thing.
I've worked in retail for far too long and one of the harsh lessons that I learned very quickly is that consumers don't stop to think that as a business you are there to make money.
Actually, they do, and that's how they know when they're being exploited and taken advantage of for that purpose. Businesses make money, but there are many ways to go about that, and many are less ethical than others.
So I guess you eat organic food, and buy all your clothes from an organic source? As well as not supporting any company that has direct or indirect ties with anything unethical?
Please give me a fucking break.
1% of the population pays attention to that stuff, and it takes money to do things differently.
I generally agree with the article, though I have some asides for it. The charity angle is a pretty thin cover for the RMT move. Lots of companies donate more proceeds from the sale of specific items to assorted charities. If people actually cared for a given charity, clicking on websites and plugging in credit card info is ridiculously easy these days. Anyone who thinks they are getting these pets for anything but personal vanity is, quite simply, fooling themselves. This doesn't mean charity is bad. Just that we need to be clear that Blizzard is not simply doing this for the children here. They're doing it to sugar-coat the RMT move. It's nice that they are initially donating some of the sales to charity, but that stops after Dec. 31, after which it goes straight to their pockets. However, I do agree there's a lot of fury over something that hasn't yet seen any actual implications. Saying that non-combat pets affecting the achievements is a big deal is just plain bunk. Until the non-combat pet achievements give me 310% speed flying mounts or epics, I find it difficult to drum up much sympathy for those crying "Wolf, wolf!" The reward for collecting non-combat pets is... more non-combat pets. Hmm. Don't see how a little skunk that likes to hump black cats is really hurting the game there, folks. If Blizzard crosses the line from non-combat pets and maybe heirlooms (basically worthless to sell for real money except to first-time players anyway) into actual superior/epic gear and/or emblems and badges, I'll be glad to grab a pitchfork and a torch, and help you all lynch them on every forum, blog, etc. on the web. Until then, I'll be keeping my tinfoil hat handy, just in case...
Wonderful article. But the vast majority of those who read it will have to first remove their head from their own ass before they are able to comprehend what it actually means. 99.9% of gamers are retarded. Protest charity! Idiots.
I don't think it's so much "protesting charity". I think it's more questioning why does a company that makes billions if not more in profit of an existing customer base feel the need to charge more for additional items in order to donate to charity. Couldn't they just do it from their existing income and the write it off as a tax break? Or better yet offer up 25% or 50% of 1 month's subscription fees as a charitable gift?
Why instead to they choose to offer up additional virtual items for purchase and offer a percentage of those sales (why not offer the entire amount generated from those sales?) so that they don't have to give up any of their standard subscription revenue. Sounds disingenuous to me at best.
For the record I don't play WoW and don't have anything against Blizzard personally. This store idea just seems a little..."not right" from the sounds of it.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Comments
Why? Because thats just too easy an answer (and also means that the 500g you spent to have a blacksmith make you a sword, which he then kept, is now equal to $20 and now he's liable for theft.)
In any game that constitutes scamming. In terms of the TOS and EULA, it's generally against the rules in an MMO to scam any other player of any in-game items.
In World of Warcraft for example, it is a ban-able offense, and generally restitution is made to the player who was scammed. Especially since they have records of the trade occurring generally.
For example, the SWTOR microtransaction TOS.
(I) You acknowledge and agree that all items acquired for points during the Game Program are non-refundable and non-tradable.
(K) You acknowledge and agree that BWA reserves the right to change/add/remove points rewarded in the Game store at any time and without warning. (M) You acknowledge and agree that points acquired during the Game Program cannot be saved up for or used in the commercial version of the Game.
Do you think they get charged for theft for removing the in-game points/
That isn't a valid argument against it, please find another.
I would have respected Blizzard more if they chose to give 100% of the money to charity instead of 50%. And at this point in time, I have to admit that I do not like the idea of indroducing item malls into games that already have a subscription fee. However, as long as they do not start to sell game breaking items that put other people at a far advantage over me, I will not worry.
Main characters:
Jinn Gone Quiet (Guild Wars)
Princess Pudding (Guild Wars)
I'm actually really impressed that they convinced the execs to donate that much in the first place.
"These pets offer absolutely no bonuses or in-game advantages of any kind"
Actually it does offer advantages in the achievement system, people that live for the achievements in this game (a large amount of people in my guild) are having to buy the pet to keep up with the joneses, so it does effect in-game systems.
I wouldn't have any problem at all with blizzard doing this if it didn't effect achievements. Luckily I am not big on achievements though
I enjoyed your post, Jon, except that you have some trouble with your R pressing that makes it come before/after wherever you wanted it to actually be.
*Shakes spelling Nazi fist*
Guys should complain a little, but the amount of "RMT IS THE DEVIL!" arguments I'm hearing is absurd. No wonder no one believes in God anymore - Evangelists and various crazy people trying to back up the religion by crying out about evil just tend to reinforce the opinion that what you're thinking (Eh, minimal vanity RMT) is probably better than being a crazy person (NO RMT BECAUSE IT'S BAD AND WE HATE IT AND MY MUM WON'T GIVE ME $10 TO BUY THE PETS).
Cheers Blizzard, keep making money to produce quality games - even if you do add stupidly large revenue schemes... ($25 for Server Transfers back in the day? Ugh... I did it once and I felt dirty and cheated.)
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
The money making schemes of big business is starting to go to ridiculous lengths. We are starting to see them rear their ugly heads now in MMO's. An example of this but a little off topic, today on the radio I heard that Bon Jovi is coming to town and tickets will be going on sale. If you want to get tickets you will have to buy a digital copy of their new album. The general public will then be able to buy tickets a week later, it it's not already sold out. Is that crazy, or just me?
Achievement Unlocked: Mr. Moneybags. [100]
Spent $1000 or more in the Blizzard Store.
Would you really even want that Achievement? If so, why, you retard*?
*Note that I am only calling you, or anyone that, if they really wanted that Achievement.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
I disagree and i think your wrong about this, there are allot of "grown ups" that are financially secure but dont have the time to "gear" or "level" their characters like most "kiddies" do. There is a MUCH larger number of folks that would embrace RMT, more than the keyboard jockeys that troll these forums.
Why? Because thats just too easy an answer (and also means that the 500g you spent to have a blacksmith make you a sword, which he then kept, is now equal to $20 and now he's liable for theft.)
In any game that constitutes scamming. In terms of the TOS and EULA, it's generally against the rules in an MMO to scam any other player of any in-game items.
In World of Warcraft for example, it is a ban-able offense, and generally restitution is made to the player who was scammed. Especially since they have records of the trade occurring generally.
For example, the SWTOR microtransaction TOS.
(I) You acknowledge and agree that all items acquired for points during the Game Program are non-refundable and non-tradable.
(K) You acknowledge and agree that BWA reserves the right to change/add/remove points rewarded in the Game store at any time and without warning. (M) You acknowledge and agree that points acquired during the Game Program cannot be saved up for or used in the commercial version of the Game.
Do you think they get charged for theft for removing the in-game points/
That isn't a valid argument against it, please find another.
I was referring to two players, not the company and the player. So the SWTOR example has no connection to my example.
I don't think Blizzard would put items in an itemshop that would actually affect the game. Just like they would never lower the subscription fee, even though they have an 11 million player base wich I kind of doubt. No quite the contrary. They rather have you trudge along. That way they can suck up as much money as possible off there player community. To be honest with you World of Warcraft is kind of outdated anyway. From a graphic stand point anyway. Blizzard had some good ideas. But they also had a lot of bad ideas. We'll just have to wait and see on which side of the line this one falls.
P.S:If they really cared about the player base you would some kind of real respose. NOT automated. They would also ask the commuity what content should be add. Not just spring it on them at some cheesey ass cinvention.
But they don't really care about the player base. They care about making a profit. They only care for the customers insofar as it keeps them as subscribers, or generates more subscribers. I swear, some of you seem to think that companies actually "Care". Do you also believe those stupid mortgage and insurance commercials that tell you the companies care?
All this sensationalism about how the big companies are destroying MMOs is a bit reminiscent of the ultra-conservatives and their assertion that Obama pushing for a public option is the first step to socializing our country: a whole lot of shouting and paranoia, without the facts to support it.
Maybe all of you dissenters should take a cue from Bachman and rally around Blizzard HQ in protest to this first step towards a subscription and RMT model to show your disgust and outrage.
Why? Because thats just too easy an answer (and also means that the 500g you spent to have a blacksmith make you a sword, which he then kept, is now equal to $20 and now he's liable for theft.)
In any game that constitutes scamming. In terms of the TOS and EULA, it's generally against the rules in an MMO to scam any other player of any in-game items.
In World of Warcraft for example, it is a ban-able offense, and generally restitution is made to the player who was scammed. Especially since they have records of the trade occurring generally.
For example, the SWTOR microtransaction TOS.
(I) You acknowledge and agree that all items acquired for points during the Game Program are non-refundable and non-tradable.
(K) You acknowledge and agree that BWA reserves the right to change/add/remove points rewarded in the Game store at any time and without warning. (M) You acknowledge and agree that points acquired during the Game Program cannot be saved up for or used in the commercial version of the Game.
Do you think they get charged for theft for removing the in-game points/
That isn't a valid argument against it, please find another.
I was referring to two players, not the company and the player. So the SWTOR example has no connection to my example.
If the company that sell you the gold cannot be held responsible for taking your money for no reason, how could a player be accounted for it? Clearly you don't know law. You don't own anything in a video game world, so one player taking something from another player, that doesn't have any value in real life (as mentioned MANY MANY times throughout TOS) cannot be stolen and the player cannot be charged with "theft".
I used SW:TOR for my example, because the micro-transaction TOS was readily available to me without having to read-up and cut some out of some other games, so yes, as a probably user of RMT it does connect to your example. As does that of World of Warcraft which I imagine is similar.
But you have it backwards. Blizzard isn't forcing anyone to buy their pets to gain access to a particular live event going on next week. It's something extra added to the game. How about for the people not happy with it, just pretend like its not there and continue playing the game as usual because you know what? That's a perfectly viable reaction to the store. If you don't like it, ignore it. They are not requiring you to buy anything from this store for expanded access to the game or anything. These are all extras. How ridiculous and childish...think we need to call the "waaaaaghhh-mbulance" on this one.
Read Wood: WoW Pets and Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Like many other posters, Jon, I disagree with you that (a) now is not the time to make a fuss, and (b) there is a limited amount of such fuss that companies will really take notice of. I think your article just reflects a personal tolerance for RMT and more generally how much value you personally place on ideals, and idealism. There is very little rational logic or argument going on here.
I cancelled my WoW account a few days ago after playing a month or two and I am now (more happily) playing Fallen Earth. If I was still subscribed to WoW I would have cancelled because of the RMT issue. If RMT ever appears in Fallen Earth I will leave, but I think that will never happen because of the market niche Icarus has aimed for. And really, thank heavens for Icarus.
I generally agree with the article, though I have some asides for it.
The charity angle is a pretty thin cover for the RMT move. Lots of companies donate more proceeds from the sale of specific items to assorted charities. If people actually cared for a given charity, clicking on websites and plugging in credit card info is ridiculously easy these days. Anyone who thinks they are getting these pets for anything but personal vanity is, quite simply, fooling themselves.
This doesn't mean charity is bad. Just that we need to be clear that Blizzard is not simply doing this for the children here. They're doing it to sugar-coat the RMT move. It's nice that they are initially donating some of the sales to charity, but that stops after Dec. 31, after which it goes straight to their pockets.
However, I do agree there's a lot of fury over something that hasn't yet seen any actual implications. Saying that non-combat pets affecting the achievements is a big deal is just plain bunk. Until the non-combat pet achievements give me 310% speed flying mounts or epics, I find it difficult to drum up much sympathy for those crying "Wolf, wolf!" The reward for collecting non-combat pets is... more non-combat pets. Hmm. Don't see how a little skunk that likes to hump black cats is really hurting the game there, folks.
If Blizzard crosses the line from non-combat pets and maybe heirlooms (basically worthless to sell for real money except to first-time players anyway) into actual superior/epic gear and/or emblems and badges, I'll be glad to grab a pitchfork and a torch, and help you all lynch them on every forum, blog, etc. on the web.
Until then, I'll be keeping my tinfoil hat handy, just in case...
Exactly.
I've worked in retail for far too long and one of the harsh lessons that I learned very quickly is that consumers don't stop to think that as a business you are there to make money.
In this topic Blizzard is offering a product in exchange for cash. If you don't like it don't buy it.
If they were doing something like stating that you had to have one or both of these pets to continue your subscription, or that the pets each added a % to your stats for owning them yes my personal opinion would be that it is not cool, but my opinion isn't what counts. What does count is what happens to the business model whether it be bottom line $$ value, projected future income or however they want to measure it.
At the end of the day it is their business and they can make whatever changes they want fair or unfair and if you don't like it then cancel your sub, if you don't have one and were born with Blizzard hate why do you care to comment in the first place.
Things change if the business model takes a hit, not because a blog was written to clarify a situation and 200+ people had a flame war over their opinions on what they think is ethical in how companies choose to make money.
Currently Playing: SUN Online
Actually, they do, and that's how they know when they're being exploited and taken advantage of for that purpose. Businesses make money, but there are many ways to go about that, and many are less ethical than others.
Bans a perma, but so are sigs in necro posts.
EAT ME MMORPG.com!
Actually, they do, and that's how they know when they're being exploited and taken advantage of for that purpose. Businesses make money, but there are many ways to go about that, and many are less ethical than others.
The cute little pandas and liches are really exploiting you? Seriously? Do you feel that obligated to buy one to feel like you are fully experiencing the game? You'll probably forget about all this next week. Again, another extrapolation without reason. If you are going to point out exploitation, at least provide a good reason. Voluntarily being able to buy pointless cosmetic virtual items surely cannot convince you that Blizzard is really forcing you into a situation here as a subscriber -_- Unless you are that easily influenced by the game of course then I would recommend therapy and time off from the game
I have already crossed off SC2, D3, and the next Blizzard MMO, unless this move is backed away from.
You and other like minded individuals comprise a TINY percentage of the player base. In the grand scheme of things, your presence and money will not be missed. This is trival, and if you allow it to deprive you of the enjoyment of the next few games, you have only yourself to blame.
Devil's advocate: Where is your statistical data that shows what exactly that percentage is? (Rhetorical question as you don't have any)
Fact of the matter is none of us know how this will affect those game sales until they happen and even then there isn't a way to measure how many people would have purchased the games but decided not to because of this move. A look can be taken by Blizzard internally comparing their average weekly or monthly loss of accounts and then compare them to the data gathered after this announcement. Of course, they aren't going to share that information with us if it's negative. If it's positive they will because companies (ahem, SOE) like to pat themselves on the back if a "controversial" move earns a profit.
So if we hear from Blizzard how well the shops do with lots of fireworks and faire, then it worked. Unless they lie to save face. If we don't hear from them, then they lost more account income than the shops could replace. Maybe, lol! Speculation keeps forums alive!
Kahl, I don't need hard data for this... The percentage of people who lapse into hysterics about something this trival has to be smaller than those who win the Darwin award...
But yes, emo does keep the forums running... 
You know you guys are right. Take all the vanity out of the game and make it only about stats.
This is what happens when you morph a game over the years into catering to the grief fest types. They wont even make a donation to charity for a vanity pet.
Spoiled much?
Actually, they do, and that's how they know when they're being exploited and taken advantage of for that purpose. Businesses make money, but there are many ways to go about that, and many are less ethical than others.
How is this in any way unethical? No one flamed Nintendo when they made people go to their Pokemon Center in New York to access certain legendary Pokemon, or buy extra accessories to get access to them. That actually affected gameplay. Blizzard will only have crossed the line if they decided to implement items that affected gameplay, or decided to only make new non-combat pets available through their Blizzard Store, or something along those lines. This is no such thing.
Actually, they do, and that's how they know when they're being exploited and taken advantage of for that purpose. Businesses make money, but there are many ways to go about that, and many are less ethical than others.
So I guess you eat organic food, and buy all your clothes from an organic source? As well as not supporting any company that has direct or indirect ties with anything unethical?
Please give me a fucking break.
1% of the population pays attention to that stuff, and it takes money to do things differently.
I like your conspiracy theory. Its funny.
I don't think it's so much "protesting charity". I think it's more questioning why does a company that makes billions if not more in profit of an existing customer base feel the need to charge more for additional items in order to donate to charity. Couldn't they just do it from their existing income and the write it off as a tax break? Or better yet offer up 25% or 50% of 1 month's subscription fees as a charitable gift?
Why instead to they choose to offer up additional virtual items for purchase and offer a percentage of those sales (why not offer the entire amount generated from those sales?) so that they don't have to give up any of their standard subscription revenue. Sounds disingenuous to me at best.
For the record I don't play WoW and don't have anything against Blizzard personally. This store idea just seems a little..."not right" from the sounds of it.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez