Cash for items would completely destroy WoW

#0 - Dec. 10, 2008, 9:06 p.m.

As you all know (or may not) recently Sony introduced a new system called "station cash" where players can pretty much throw down 10-30 bucks for potions and other items in the game to assist them. They've begun to add a micro purchasing method to their business model as well as keeping the same subscription.

I happened to take a look at their forums (yes, call me a masochist but I wanted to see the sweet QQ tears) and I came across a couple alarming posts.

http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=30&topic_id=438341

Starting on Page 3 people start to reference datamining results for WoW

"RMT for fluff items is coming to WoW as well. People dving through data found the buttons used to activate it were already included in one of the patches. This was a couple months ago and Blizzard said they were considering it."

Looking on google turns up a few interesting results, including this article

http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2008/10/wow-micro-transactions.html

Which confirms the fact that Blizzard at one point contemplated Micro- Transactions.

So I would just like an official blue response as to whether or not this is planned, going to be implemented, or surprised on us like Sony did to its members.

http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/10/13/paid-character-customisation-heading-to-wow/

Or if this is all just a bunch of hooplah,

and If you do know something about it, to what extent will you be able to purchase items for money?

Rynoa, over and out.

Zarhym

#6 - Dec. 10, 2008, 9:17 p.m.

The are no current plans to allow for players to purchase in-game items or gold using real-world money.

Zarhym

#17 - Dec. 10, 2008, 9:25 p.m.

Q u o t e:
[quote]The are no current plans to allow for players to purchase in-game items or gold using real-world money.[/quote

But that does not mean that the idea has not been discussed for a future roll out or even in the works. Only that it is not planned at this time for a current roll out.

I've learned not to speak in absolutes. I will say though that the idea is quite against our current design philosophy, as iterated by Acetyx above:

Q u o t e:
I think that micro transactions are only ok when they have zero effect on gameplay. If the changes are exclusively cosmetic then that's fine, but if they have an actual effect on the game and give players who choose to pay an advantage I think it's terrible.

Zarhym

#21 - Dec. 10, 2008, 9:27 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Yeah like that guy sitting AFK on his Ghost Saber mount really earned it by buying a pack of trading cards.

Exploiting is still quite a bit different from a Blizzard-sanctioned item/gold sale.

Edit: I think I missed that actual point of the post I quoted when responding. Please disregard. ^.^

Zarhym

#31 - Dec. 10, 2008, 9:32 p.m.

Q u o t e:

keyword= current

You see right through everything, don'cha!

Zarhym

#37 - Dec. 10, 2008, 9:35 p.m.

Q u o t e:
zar, do you personally think it's a bad idea? i know you're allowed to comment on things like this:P

j/w

(i hate the idea.)

Yes, I think it would be a very bad idea.

Zarhym

#153 - Dec. 11, 2008, 12:24 a.m.

Q u o t e:

Fix'd

Wait, that was til you guys calculated the $$$ that were being ignored. At face value this doesn't seem much different.

It's absolutely different. In fact, it seems the only reason you're allotted the luxury of making such a response is because of the word "currently." We use it all the time, mostly to cover our ourselves since we, as community managers, aren't involved in all decisions made on behalf of Blizzard Entertainment -- though I must admit the controversy and skepticism the word causes is almost cathartic for me now. :p

If your argument is that, on a long enough time line, anything we've stated we have "no current plans" to do will be implemented, there's no real basis for it. If you're arguing that we'll do whatever makes us the most profit, you're a pessimist and we can be friends. It's not true though. Integrity is still neato in our book.

Zarhym

#279 - Dec. 11, 2008, 8:11 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Nice dodge.

It is currently possible to buy game items with Earth money. Those purchasable items have been endorsed by Blizzard.

I didn't dodge the comment. I completely misunderstood the comment because I wasn't reading carefully enough. I'm willing to admit that so long as word doesn't get out that I may, in fact, be human. :)

We have made it so that some cosmetic, fun items can be obtained by those purchasing the trading card game. This is called marketing. The more you equate this directly to an imaginary scenario where we provide a system for players to purchase epic items with credit cards, the less likely it is we'll have a need to continue this discussion.

Those who didn't read past the first page are quick to point out that we have, in the past, changed our minds. I'm not sure what that proves with regards to this topic, but I thank you for considering the idea that things can change.

Nethaera

#289 - Dec. 11, 2008, 8:26 p.m.

Q u o t e:

I didn't dodge the comment. I completely misunderstood the comment because I wasn't reading carefully enough. I'm willing to admit that so long as word doesn't get out that I may, in fact, be human. :)

I can attest that Zarhym is not human and his skull may in fact be some other race... Just to dispel the possible rumors.

Zarhym

#378 - Dec. 12, 2008, 10:40 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Q u o t e:
The are no current plans to allow for players to purchase in-game items or gold using real-world money.

There are also no current plans to allow PVE-to-PVP server transfers.
There are also no current plans to allow character sex changes.

A + B = C

2 + 2 = 4

Strawberries + Cheesecake = Strawberry Cheesecake

Therefore,

A + 2 = Strawberry Cheesecake

...

Zarhym

#381 - Dec. 12, 2008, 10:43 p.m.

Q u o t e:

The guy has a pretty good point tho

What is that point? Is it that we have changed our minds on certain restrictions in the past, therefore we will inevitably change our minds on any current restrictions regardless of what our stated plans are when asked?

Zarhym

#388 - Dec. 12, 2008, 10:56 p.m.

Q u o t e:

euphemism that equals doublespeak.

next agent please!

That's not a euphemism, nor doublespeak. It's one of the first things you learn if you're practicing analytical writing: don't speak in absolutes.

Q u o t e:
What reasoning do we have to believe anything Blizzard says after telling us 15 bucks for equal footing then RAF

Then years of saying no to pve to pvp transfers, and the $$$ went off and decided it's time to start milking that cash cow.

If I were taking an SAT test the next logical step would probably be in-game gear being sold for real money.

What reasoning is there to say this will never happen. There isn't any.

Money was not the primary reason for any of the features we've added. Not everything in business is so black and white. It seems we disagree on this, and I apparently don't have the means to change your perspective. Have a good weekend.

Edit:

I'd just like to add one more thing.

Q u o t e:
Honestly, give me some reasoning why you think Blizzard won't ever open the gear for cash floodgate when they've already opened up so many other things.

Because it's a completely different issue and our stance on this is not solely driven by finances.

Zarhym

#392 - Dec. 12, 2008, 11:01 p.m.

Q u o t e:

A + B = C

2 + 2 = 4

So the set value of both A and B is 2

Strawberries + Cheesecake = Strawberry Cheesecake

Making the set value of A and B Strawberries and Cheesecake respectively. This means the following:

A = 2
A = Strawberries
2 = Strawberries

B = 2
B = Cheesecake
2 = Cheesecake

Obviously now A = B. Zarhym's conclusion is that

A + 2 = Strawberry Cheesecake, but I would disagree with this.

Since C = 4 and C = Strawberry Cheesecake, 4 = Strawberry Cheesecake deliberating that there are indeed, FOUR Strawberry Cheesecakes? See where I'm going with this?

2 = Strawberries
2 = Cheesecake

Which means, that according to the allotted information, There are TWO Cheesecakes to begin with, when combined with value A Strawberries still concludes in TWO Cheesecakes!

Yes, Zarhym, 2 + 2 = 4, but A + 2 != Strawberry Cheesecake!

BAD ZARHYM!

Am I supposed to determine how much strawberry cheesecake is present?

Oh come on man. Lemme just have some! How about you guess much I want? If you said a hand full, you are correct.

Zarhym

#397 - Dec. 12, 2008, 11:06 p.m.

Q u o t e:

If money wasn't the primary reason, why wasn't it implemented similar to the barber shop? I find that a lil hard to believe.

Then you think I'm being disingenuous or am severely misinformed about the nature of our business.

Q u o t e:
You can't change my perspective cause I'm allowed to have an opinion that goes against Blizzard while you're not. I feel for you man. It's gotta be tuff to defend such shady business practices.

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't assume what mine is. I wouldn't defend what truly isn't worth defending.

Q u o t e:
The inevitable conclusion to all these microtransactions will be when Blizzard decides they can make more money in-game to offset the money they'll lose in subscriptions. It won't ever be about quality, but simply about milking what's left out of a once legendary game.

You've made your assumption and aren't afraid to reiterate it from your corner of the universe. I commend you.