Screw it, I had to chime in on the WoW pets thang..(..old beat up issue…)
As if anyone could not guess as to how I feel about it.
First of all, WoW is far behind the times. They still have very few features that most games out there do have. This is another example of them catching up to 2005. Still, the game is fun and runs wonderfully, so congrats to them.
Here are the main problems players have with the pets being sold for 10 dollars:
1) They already pay for content, to the tune of 15 dollars a month and 50 dollars per expansion: For some reason, many think that this cost of 15 dollars a month and 50 dollars for an expansion should be the measuring stick for what all should value. Who are they to say? I am not sure why they think this. What about server transfers? What about sex changes, dual accounts or limited edition goodies? Are these somehow not “extra content” that they paid for?Expansions are not forced OR needed, they are OPTIONAL CONTENT.
2) They think that a mount or a new area to explore is real content, while a pet is not: An expansion equals real content, and should be paid for by all. A pet is not real content, and should be given away for free.
I actually DO agree with the idea that a pet is not EQUAL in value to an EXPANSION filled with new lands and new quests. But that does not mean that it does not hold that much value for SOMEONE ELSE. And, WoW knows this. That’s why the expansion is 50 dollars while the pet is 10. Players seem to think that raiding is somehow included in the cost of the game, yet they are setting that cost to INCLUDE THE EXPANSIONS. The expansion were extra content (pets are too) that cost extra (just like pets.)
That’s all there is to be said. This subject is so old that even I am tired of it, and I LOVE to argue about it. WoW players: the rest of the world is cool with this. The game will go on, and you will not unsubscribe. You will keep playing, and will probably break down to buy one of the pets. After all, unless I am mistaken, aren’t they for CHARITY? No one will make fun of you if you buy it, and no one else’s game will be effected, just like when you buy that extra account, that limited edition (to get IT’S pet) or when you spend an extra 400 bucks to make your connection AND your PC faster…. speaking of real money advantages.
You will continue to sub, I should say, until the expansion comes out. Then, guess what? You will spend an extra 50 bucks on that content (just like the pet collector did.)
So, you spend money, you get some fun.
They spent money on a pet, and got some fun.
There is absolutely no difference. Nothing game-changing or destroying.
Ok, I need to shower.
Beau
I am a bit worried about myself because once again (as happens often lately) I find myself in complete agreement with you. The issue is, as the immortal bard once put it, “Much ado about nothing.” – Julie Whitefeather
Don’t worry, I’ll go back to being full of crap soon enough! I always do! lol
Beau
You might as well save your breath. This is fast becoming an MMO “faith” issue. You just believe in the Microtransaction model or you don’t. The energy taken to convert a believer from one side to the other could be spent much better elsewhere (like the $10 for those really dumb pets).
I think that, as usual, in trying to counter the hysterical assertions of those who think Microtransactions are a pact with the Evil One, you’re exaggerating the opposite case somewhat hysterically as well. To make your point, you are equating things that are related but not identical. Expansions for MMOs are no more the same as pets in MMOs than your head is the same as a single hair on your head.
To stretch my analogy a little further, the original MMO is your head/torso/essential organs; without it you cannot persist. The expansions are your limbs; without them your freedom of movement and action is limited. Items bought through Microtransactions are your body hair, your nails; you might prefer to have them, but you’ll get by pretty well without and hardly notice any difference.
I’d also contend with your idea that WoW players will inevitably pay for these pets or services like them. I’ve been playing MMOs for a decade and I’ve never paid for anything other than the base game, subscription and expansions. I consider that to be a series of discrete payments for individual products, plus a service charge to use them. Each expansion is a purchase, as the original game was. It’s buying a new game, basically. I’d call that a “Transaction”, not a “Microtransaction”. I’ve never felt the need to pay a penny more for any of the add-ons or in-game luxuries. Games are plenty fun without any of that.
In the end, though, I really DON’T FLIPPIN’ CARE! There are way, way more MMOs now that interest me than I will ever have time to play. If any one of them goes over whatever arbitrary line I might choose to draw about how much money they expect to get out of me before I find their game fun to play, then I will just play something else! I really, really don’t care what other people spend their money on, even if it’s a dollar a level to have your character boosted overnight – let alone bloody pandas that look like mushrooms.
You always post a really detailed comment saying
1) That my opinion is just an opinion, so not fact. Then you post your opinion.
2) That I should stop bothering with these silly topics for my blog (although they are rarely posted about) and then go on to comment on them.
I am surprised that of all people, you would not see the obvious either. Just because you THINK than an expansion is something worth more than a pet, does not mean it IS. Do you know I literally know probably dozens of people that felt that the last expansion for WoW was decent, but it did not make them nearly as excited as a much smaller patch that came out months later?
And players will eventually pay for them. The proof? Server transfers, sex changes and all other forms of “pay real life money for in game services/things” sell. Blizzard knows this, and will eventually introduce more items like this. You have to consider for a moment that most players have no issue with this, after all the bulk of MMO’ing being done in the world is done through payment models other than a subscription. The bulk of WoW’s players are outside of the US. Most players, statistically, are not like you.
So, define an expansion, then. Does an expansion have to have X square miles of virtual land to explore? How bout X amount of quests? Are you saying that there is a number out there that defines not only an expansion, but one that is worth paying for? Like I told Jeg, how do you know that this introduction of 2 pets, and the cash-shop type system it uses, is NOT considered a sort of expansion by a pet collector? Are you telling me that it is impossible or very unlikely that a player could get just as much fun in proportion with these pets as a player might get out of some new land and some new quests? And you seem to have a definition of what is allowed or sold within a cash-shop. I am happy that you know that anything sold for under a certain price range is considered NON-content, or not as valid as an “expansion” (as though MMO’s have never put out an “expansion” that is nothing but “fluff” before) but, even though you think this is a non-issue and decided to write a long comment about it, you do not write the Rules of Value. Individuals do. While I do not think that a cash shop pet is exactly EQUAL to an expansion, that does not mean that they are not. And, did you not notice the price difference? See, an expansion costs more than a pet. That means that Blizzard believes the value is lower. I never said that “these pets are worth 50 dollars and should be considered an expansion”. I said that these pets could be worth whatever the Hell a player wants to make them worth. After all, NO ONE HAS TO BUY THEM.
Now, allow me the luxury of addressing a very specific issue that is actually directed to other people in other places besides this blog, without telling me how much you think I am wasting my time. Remember, it took about 4 minutes to write this. So, like the non-issues that I seem to waste my time on occasionally (I know, it’s a sin) just ignore these and don’t comment. Unless you care, of course. lol
Beau
Who are posts on your blog directed to if not readers of your blog?
More to the point, I’m not disagreeing with you in the first place! I agree with what I take to be your general point that microtransactions are fine. I’ve got absolutely nothing against them and if someday there’s something on offer in an MMO I play that I actually want, at a price I find reasonable, I’ll have no hesitation in buying it. So far, I’ve yet to see much I’d even want for free, let alone pay for, but it could happen someday.
When I said “I don’t care”, again, I am agreeing with you. I mean it’s just not a big deal, it really isn’t. All the people getting up in arms about it needn’t bother. The world’s not coming to an end because a big company decided to sell some imaginary pets to make even more money.
I’m not saying “I don’t care so you shouldn’t write about it”. I was saying “If you go overboard in the opposite direction it tends to weaken your argument”. I agree with your argument, so I would like to see it expounded as effectively as possible.
I’ll define an expansion, since you kindly asked me to: an expansion is a product the game company markets under the description “Expansion”. As in “The newest EverQuest®II expansion has been announced!”, as Station.com has it for “Sentinel’s Fate”, for example. They call it an expansion, it’s an expansion. If they start calling a pet from the item store “an expansion” then we can discuss if they are good expansions or not. (Personally I’d welcome an “expansion” that was all “fluff”. Don’t think we are likely to see one though).
You must type a lot faster than me, too – took me over half an hour to type this
The problem is it blurs the very fine line between being legitimate concerns and just being a shallow fanboy civil war.
Some tip offs to me is how explicit people try to be, and throw in a ton of opinions based on some conjecture that a more legitimate(?) site made.
a lot of it is based on personal taste. Some want to add a set number on value, so they can compare it. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s like the people who obsess over console game ratings, then when one site rates it significantly lower than most sites, they jump all over that site with flames. Even though the point is just to give you an idea if you’d like it or not. When most of the information is really coming from the player not the review they read, because who else knows what they like and how much they like it better than the player?
I sometimes wonder who these “proponents” of one side-vs.-the other side are arguing against: Others or themselves. Because they want to try to legitimize a reason to like it through arbitrary made up value markers instead of just sitting down, playing it and saying “Hey, I like this.
You want to argue over a pet panda for 10 bucks or a riding mount that costs ten bucks, then expand that to fit into an already deluded vision of this RMT vs. Sub argument.
You know some will say that cat isn’t worth 4 bucks but the panda, I’d pay 20 for it. Some will say will change their minds down the road. Theirs too many feelings and variables of life to consider.
On a side note: I am a bit distraught about this RMT vs. Sub thing. I mean it basically started for a stupid reason and kept going(In my opinion).
People want to create a microcosm so they can compare RMT vs. Sub but the real truth is, money you spend on clothes and mountain dew and posters, and internet, and a slew of things is just as legitimate reasons to consider as anything else. You are spending money for your enjoyment of it.
This isn’t something new. Most things in life have been done before, maybe just behind a slightly different mask. The US deals with capitalism. That’s what this is a part of, just like when the PS3 and Wii first came out.
I don’t find anything overly offensive about talking about it, but 99% of every argument I saw on RMT vs. Sub contained a persons feelings or opinions which destroy it right then and there. You can’t eat your cake and have it too. If you want to argue some universal value, then you’re going to have to separate that from your unique personal feelings and opinions, even if some share them with you.
I play Runes of Magic, I love the game, I’ve come to appreciate certain subtleties in it that boost my enjoyment of it over WoW and some other games. I still like WoW, but I’d rather plop 10 bucks on a mount in Runes of Magic right now, than on a pet in WoW. But maybe after some time goes by and I have more money again, I’ll go back to WoW and say “Well it wasn’t worth it to me back then because I was deriving my fun in different ways, but now it’s worth it”.
This huge comment isn’t to say I don’t have my own opinions on how some games or companies handle RMT. I do. For instance, I used to play Shaiya and really liked it. However I thought that the fact that a game based so heavily around mass PvP maps only sold temporary strength boosters in cash shop was a bit, well unfair. It’s a very clear line in that game that shows you if you want to win in PvP, you’ll need to buy those items. But even then I bet some people feel differently, and I can’t argue it. Maybe some go into the PvP maps at certain times, or have learned a little finesse, and get by, raise their rank, and win rewards just fine? I think it’s possible.
Most of my arguments against RMT stay limited within the world of one game at a time. I like to compare the prices of RMT not to other games cash shops, but to the games themselves and the fun I can get out of them.
Okay, the end. I think I’ll just stop and make this a blog post
Thanks for the comment! A lot of my friends that comment need to make blog posts! Many of them dont have a blog, and I wish they did, they obviously have a lot to say! Let me know when your new one goes up.
As I’ve noted more than once, most recently somewhat… pointedly over at my place, the increasing democratization of the MMO market will force honest players to critique games on their own merit, not whether or not they are MT or sub games. It will also prompt criticism of specific business moves, since you can have jerk moves in any business model. There will always be demagogues to argue the hyperbolic positions, but the reality, as is so often the case, is somewhere in between… or along another axis entirely.
As in, “if you’re having fun with the game, don’t let the Joneses tell you otherwise”.
Sorry to be late to the party. I hope you read comments left in your older blog posts, Beau.
Since I have no experience with RMT and you do, I’d like to know from you how WoW’s RMT compares to the RMT of F2P games. Do pets in F2P games normally cost this much, or are they usually cheaper because there are so many to pick from? Do F2P games have services in the RMT like WoW’s paid services?
Also, I’ve felt strongly against these WoW RMT pets not because they’re RMT, but because to me it feels like they’re being greedy using both sub and RMT income models, when they’re already king of the hill in the subscription model. I would be much less offended if the prices were lower. I hope if the expand further in this direction that their prices do drop, if not on RMT items, than a lower subscription cost to balance the mandatory/optional costs.
A little aside: subjective values are not meaningless outside an individual’s experiences. The average subjective value is also useful to companies like Blizzard to determine what values will be most accepted/profitable.
(Humans often have illogical standards. Like the classic example of missing out on a sale. Now that the price is back to normal, people feel it is now MORE expensive (only relative to the sale price) and less worth the value since it was previously available for less. They are less likely to buy it after a sale than before, even though it’s the same price.)
of course, none of that validates my personal subjective values, since I can only assume that whatever maximum profit model they have is what Blizzard decided to use. :> and I don’t think my reasoning for my values can determine what the average is.