Slashdot Mirror


WoW To Add Avenue For Real-Money Gold Buying

For some time, players of Blizzard's World of Warcraft have been able to purchase a small number of vanity in-game items for real money, but the items were restricted to the user's own account. Now, Blizzard has announced they will be adding another such item, with a twist — it doesn't become bound to a player's account until they use it, so it can be traded or sold on the game's auction house. In their announcement, they said, "While our goal is to offer players alternative ways to add a Pet Store pet to their collection, we’re ok with it if some players choose to use the Guardian Cub as a safe and secure way to try to acquire a little extra in-game gold without turning to third-party gold-selling services. ... While some players might be able to acquire some extra gold by putting the Guardian Cub in the auction house, that’s preferable to players contributing to the gold-selling 'black market' and account theft."

197 comments

  1. Going back on their word by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blizzard has gone back on so many things they were once publicly opposed to, from PvE-to-PvP transfers to the purchasing of gold using real-world money. And it all began after Activision got involved. Microtransactions are becoming an increasingly prominent source of revenue for this company.

    $25 for a mount still blows me away. That's more than a month of subscription time...for a vanity mount.

    1. Re:Going back on their word by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      I'm mostly annoyed at the focus they've been giving PvP (as in, organized PvP, not random world PvP).

      It used to be that PvP was a secondary thing in WoW, PvE was the main draw. These days if you check out just about any WoW it seems to be a lot more about PvP than PvE for a lot of the active players.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Going back on their word by Impeesa · · Score: 2

      Note that you are not purchasing gold from them directly - it's an important distinction that no new gold is added to the economy as a result of this. It's functionally not really different from the CCG mounts and pets, which have been tradeable for a long time. A lot of the other things they've reversed their stance on, like PVE to PVP transfers and so on, were just arbitrary restrictions and have proven to be very useful services for a lot of people. If anything, it's more a slow process of caving to player demands than hunting for more cash (though I'm sure that's a happy side effect). I think they still understand where the line is for things that would damage the health of the game.

    3. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think with the popularity and immediacy of free to play mmo's, blizzard is adapting to the changed shape of the industry. They didn't become a the mammoth that they are today by ignoring what was currently working, they just had a knack for doing it better. On top of the micro-transactions, they also made the first 20 levels free to play (granted, it doesn't take more than a couple hours to hit level 20). Have a feeling in a years time its revenue is going to be entirely micro-transaction based.

    4. Re:Going back on their word by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Other way around. When WoW started, PvE was a joke (UBRS was a raid) and PvP was what it was all about, and it was all open world PvP. It was a hell of a lot of fun. Creating Molten Core was the first step to destroying all fun in the game by turning it from PvP into PvE.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    5. Re:Going back on their word by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It's not important. A vanity mount helps no one, it's not pay-to-win, no one should be upset about this.

      I've always thought the best way to get rid of gold sellers is to have the games get into the business. Again it's no big deal because gold is trivial to come by. Who cares if a noob gets some money? If players don't like it they can avoid buying the items. People take games too seriously treating everything as a competition instead of having fun.

    6. Re:Going back on their word by lynnae · · Score: 1

      gold buying can be disheartening. I'm not saying it always is, but in many cases running end game content means you need either the ingame gold to buy the consumables or the time and alts to farm all your own.

      If you don't have the time and alts, and if the market for end game consumables has been inflated by gold buying, then you really are down to few choices if you want to continue on in the game.

    7. Re:Going back on their word by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      So ... you are that rogue camping flight points? And that you call world PvP? Or do you mean the Tarren Mill lag fests?
      The only world PvP I remember is killing the people riding into Molten Core on weekends ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Going back on their word by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Well, world PvP was fun. On the realm I started my first character on there were daily attacks on Darkshire, lots of fun for everyone over level 25-30 or so. These days "world PvP" seems to be about ganking (my "favorite" being the blood elf mage + undead rogue tag teams that roam the world looking for other players to gank).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    9. Re:Going back on their word by niko-fu · · Score: 1

      Blizzard has gone back on so many things they were once publicly opposed to, from PvE-to-PvP transfers to the purchasing of gold using real-world money. And it all began after Activision got involved. Microtransactions are becoming an increasingly prominent source of revenue for this company.

      $25 for a mount still blows me away. That's more than a month of subscription time...for a vanity mount.

    10. Re:Going back on their word by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "$25 for a mount still blows me away. That's more than a month of subscription time...for a vanity mount."

      What's even more mind blowing is that there lots of stupid people who will just keep paying like gambling addicts.

    11. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $25 for a mount still blows me away. That's more than a month of subscription time...for a vanity mount.
      I don't see a big problem with that price point, being it's luxury vanity item, purely for looks. For a game having such a wide appeal to gamers, there will always be people who are willing to spend much more than standard subscription, and any game company would be stupid not to cash on it in a way that won't alienate the rest of players. I mean there's like what, 200 obtainable mounts in WoW atm ? You can ride only 1 at a time, and much of them are better looking than the ones you can buy for real money.

      As for the new pet being essentially way to buy gold, it's bullshit and i'm sure some people will quit over it, however as it stands i don't see it affecting the game in any way - the thing is, with Cataclysm release, gold was pretty much trivialized, simple questing on higher levels gives tons of gold, and any activity you do in the game (maybe with exception of high-end raiding) is gold-positive, with almost no gold sinks being available. The game has shifted towards non-tradeable currencies (emblems, points, soulbound drops from dungeons/raids), up to the point that blizzard itself says that gold farming in wow is now on steep decline, and the only gold selling services remaining are the ones getting gold from hacked accounts.

    12. Re:Going back on their word by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 1

      Have a feeling in a years time its revenue is going to be entirely micro-transaction based.

      In that case, in a years time I won't be playing WoW any more.

    13. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, considering that PvP gear is a lot easier to obtain and higher ilvl/quality than PvE stuff. It takes away a lot from the game, considering just a few days in PvP makes you viable for heroics rather and even better than most of the raids. Granted you lose out on secondary stats to resilience, but after that its still better overall.

    14. Re:Going back on their word by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      While I admit I haven't played WoW since vanilla (pre burning crusade). I have to say from my viewpoint at least, it more likely isn't the games focus changing as the players focus. Particularly due to the fact that the working system of PVE is raiding, in which you have 20-40 people gathered up, needing all of them to be geared up with more or lest the best of the previous raid, then having to beat the bosses, which are hard at first as you are learning their tactics, where to stand when etc... and any 1 person in the 20-40 standing in the wrong place constitutes a wipe, after that when you finally get everyone on the same page for each boss, you then have to repeat it, over and over again till you can get each of your 20-40 people the gear they need to move on to the next area, (since only 1-2 items will drop each time and you need to gear up everyone). This IMO leads to some major burnout. So I'd imagine the players that enjoy that style, for the most part lose interest, need long breaks every few months etc... Meaning the PVPers are the ones who aren't getting bored. Also another factor is guilds, In general there are only 2-3 guilds that are at the top of the PVE settings, meaning if you had the gear from the first 2-3 raids, the only raids that would benefit you are the 4th and up raids. Limiting your guild choice to ever get anything to 2-3 guilds tops. When the inevitable guild drama hits, PVE-ers really have nowhere to go and just retire, PVPers aren't even really dependent on having a guild.

    15. Re:Going back on their word by MWojcik · · Score: 1

      There's one important caveat: no "new" gold enters the system. When someone buys the pet for real money and someone else buys it for gold, that gold was already present in the game, it was not "created" by the real money transaction.

    16. Re:Going back on their word by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find the big cash rewards for daily quests had a lot more to do with inflation.
      If you do the dailies for rep grinding then at level 85 gold is really just something to keep score unless you just have to buy the most expensive stuff in the AH instead of waiting for it to drop, or if you want to buy all the stuff you need to get that skill up now.
      If you don't have the time to learn how to play your character well enough to do a raid then it's true you won't have enough gold to buy the stuff to run it either. You don't read a book by turning to the last page do you? Why try to jump right to the end of the game? Those people that demand you have the best of everything before you can raid with them will probably throw you out for being a newbie anyway, or maybe just because cousin Fred just logged on and he needs a spot. Ignore them and work your way up.
      The "gold farmer" thing seems to be mostly a myth - the gold mostly comes from being drained out of hacked accounts. Guess what, to get it you apparently get asked for enough details that your account can be hacked too. Even if it worked as advertised it would be a good vector for money laundering so Blizzard would have to crack down on it hard to keep taxmen and other Feds from hassling them. Any way for third parties to put money into WoW and then for others to extract is a potential legal nightmare for Blizzard.

    17. Re:Going back on their word by errandum · · Score: 2

      No new gold was created when gold farmers that hack accounts send gold from point a to point b, and it's general knowledge that it ruins the game.

      On the other hand, this item will become so common that it'll be useless as a source of gold in no time.

    18. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard has gone back on so many things they were once publicly opposed to, from PvE-to-PvP transfers

      The game changed. Nobody played world PvP any more. There was no point in preventing people from creating characters from different factions on the one server, as there faction "espionage" became entirely pointless. Same for the transfers - there just isn't much difference between PvE and PvP realms any more.

      the purchasing of gold using real-world money

      Which they still haven't done.

    19. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look on craigslist, some girl had a "mount me for an epic mount" deal - insane.

    20. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ruins the game? Hacking accounts. Yeah, because of the theft involved since it is going against people's will. Lack of consent is the issue there.

    21. Re:Going back on their word by MisterZimbu · · Score: 1

      Things have changed significantly on that front - the raid size is smaller (10 or 25 players) and the bosses drop more loot, plus bosses give points you can spend at a vendor to get more raid-level loot.

      The burnout's still there, but it's more in the opposite direction now- a new raid comes out and the players are getting geared so fast that they have nothing to do afterwards.

    22. Re:Going back on their word by kick6 · · Score: 1

      It used to be that PvP was a secondary thing in WoW, PvE was the main draw. These days if you check out just about any WoW it seems to be a lot more about PvP than PvE for a lot of the active players.

      If PvP is the main draw now, and I'm not convinced it is, its pretty easy to see why: time commitment. As an end-game PvP character you can log on, queue for a random battleground, be in the battleground in under 5 minutes, and generally be out of the battleground in an additional 25. So you only have to invest 30 minutes to accomplish something. Arena is even faster. On my 1400 ranked arena tram (crappy, but I don't want to try any harder) I can cap points for the week in a total of about 80 minutes of play, and that assumes I lose half of my arena battles.

      To get into a random raid group.................you're probably spending that same 30 minutes you'd spend to actually complete a battleground sitting in a capital city watching trade chat hoping that some half-made group needs your class. WoW is old now, and the players that started playing in late '04/early '05 when the game dropped are still playing, but have significantly more demands on their time thus their focus has shifted away from the 6 hour raids that used to dominate end-game content.

    23. Re:Going back on their word by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I agree that some implementations of microtransactions suck but think about this:

      Do you play WoW every single day? I don't.

      In order to play WoW at all I need to pay for a 30 day subscription. But what if I only want to play for a few weeks every few months?

      Shouldn't there be a way for me to pay for my WoW game time in smaller chunks than 30 days?

      If Blizzard offered a way to pay 'by the minute' would that be bad for the game?

      I can imagine that some would argue that this would encourage the 'casuals' and ruin the game for the truly dedicated players who really do play every single day month after month.

      But the modern game industry increasingly caters to normal people, not just dedicated gamers. I think thats good because I don't consider myself 'a gamer' just an ordinary guy who is interested in MMOs, just not 'dedicated' to them.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    24. Re:Going back on their word by lynnae · · Score: 1

      I killed my wow account over a year ago. I'll skip the bit where I add my credentials

      we can all go back and forth about who does what to whom and who needs what in order to complete x, however, my comments weren't warcraft specific. I personally think there are many issues with the "current state of MMOs" and damned if I know how to fix them.

      There's a "gimme more more more, faster faster faster" attitude in most of the MMOs I've played that really start to drain the fun out it quite quickly.

    25. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you say. But if it ain't gonna cost you anything to keep your account active, and you still have access to the same raid zones with the same drops, which remain of the same quality... you're only gonna leave if you actually find something better to do.

      When I find something better to do, I'm leaving regardless of subscription plans and micro transactions.

    26. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only PvP I remember is max-level characters from the other side going to early towns and killing the quest NPCs as fast as they could so the low level players sat around and got slaughtered and/or annoyed waiting for the quest givers to respawn. But maybe I don't understand modern fun.

    27. Re:Going back on their word by Ironhandx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Excuse me Mr. new pvp whore that likes to think he's been playing since beta - but hasn't.

      WoW was a specifically stated PVE game. PVP was tacked on after the beta testing started. Molten Core was available at release(mostly, it was buggy, but available) and UBRS was a raid, doable with 10 men but for awhile they allowed 15 man raids.

      Hell, Gnomeregan was supposed to be a raid at first, as evidenced by the fact that right up until near the middle of WotLK you could form a 10 man raid and go there.

      World PVP was all that was originally intended as PVP for the game with the ability to opt-out by playing on a PVE server. Battlegrounds were tacked on by popular request in Beta.

      Your point that World PVP was a hell of a lot of fun is correct: However it was only possible to have that hell of a lot of fun in a game that was almost entirely focused on the player interacting with the Game Environment and thus having incentive to protect said environment. Darkshire and Redshore battles happened because Horde would want to go gank some alliance. Alliance would show up because they were protecting their friends that were questing and the quest mobs for everyone that wanted to use them. Vice versa happened for horde as well in other locations.

      Battleground Queueing once they had a few BGs near the end of Vanilla almost immediately had a large noticeable effect. Those that liked PVPing could get their fix in a BG and from the safety of Orgrimmar/Ironforge, leaving the village folk undefended and the opposite faction unmolested.

      There are statements out there from previous devs on WoW that they kind of hate what the game has become with Arenas etc.

      They see that the arenas can be fun but they don't fit into what was envisioned for the game originally at all.

    28. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No new gold was created when gold farmers that hack accounts send gold from point a to point b, and it's general knowledge that it ruins the game.

      I'm afraid you're just plain wrong there.
      New gold is actually created, since the hacked character's gold is laundered, and Blizzard's restoration of that character effectively duplicates the plunder. And that's assuming the gold sellers don't use the account to bot, farming a ton of resources and then selling those as well.

    29. Re:Going back on their word by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Too bad these items are all permanent mods to the account. It means that they'll be great money makers for the early investors. As more and more people buy them through gold demand will drop and the amount of gold you can get for them will drop as well. Eventually it will reach zero as there's no longer any players that want the item. So this sort of transaction really isn't going to help that in the long run.

      Compare that to EVE's PLEX, a consumable, which means demand will be kept up and provides a much more consistent value for the dollars you put in.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    30. Re:Going back on their word by Talderas · · Score: 1

      When that mount came out it was the only mount that altered based on your flying skill.

      What did this mean?

      If you had regular riding it functioned as a regular 60% mount ground.
      If you had epic riding it would function as a 100% mount on ground.
      If you had flying it would function as a 100% mount on ground and a whatever the basic flying speed was.
      If you had epic flying it would function as a 100% mount on the ground and a 280% flying mount.
      If you had a mount with 310% movement speed that mount would function as a 100% mount on the ground and 310% flying mount.

      You never had to dick around with changing your mount. You never had to make extra effort to go buy a mount, just upgrade the skills. Further it was account bound so every character you created had a mount they could use for eternity. Now factor in that a lot of riding skills got turned into BoA skill books that you can send to other characters on your account and it becomes a little more valuable. It may not be worth $25 but it did have some value beyond just a vanity item.

      The lil XT vanity pet also had a very nice function. It would destroy those irritating choo choo train sets that dipshits liked to drop in the AH or bank.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    31. Re:Going back on their word by Talderas · · Score: 1

      RMT is questionable as to how much money it adds to the system. If they acquire the gold through methods that don't involve hacking or selling vendor trash then it may not add gold either. You could argue that money for RMT gained through auctions can possibly increase the gold supply (as players may farm stuff that creates gold just to buy the stuff off the auctions) but that is an indirect increase in supply at best.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    32. Re:Going back on their word by Talderas · · Score: 1

      What you call incompetence, I call optimization.

      Now I could spend 16 hours grinding the money or I could spend $50 to buy gold.

      Let's see...... I get paid more than $3.13/hr. Yep, buying gold makes a lot more sense.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    33. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just teens playing prank on you... nothing more.

    34. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. I'm not sure what server you played on, but on most PvE was pretty secondary once one got much past 40. You are correct that the vanilla PvP rank/title/reward system wasn't implemented when the game went live, but world PvP was a major draw for a very large majority of the original players and is still often discussed by the people that played in those times. Having a large open world to fight in and lots of cities to fight over was a relatively new experience for the largely untapped MMO market at the time.

      The PvE focus didn't start until Jeff Kaplan and his EQ buddy Furor got hired on and starting sucking things up with their EQ-raid loving bias. The original WoW developers almost all left early on shortly after release and formed ArenaNet, a little company that made a little game called Guild Wars. At this point, someone somewhere decided to try to retcon the history of WoW and call it a "PvE game with PvP tacked on", but this was by no means the original intent. That's merely the shape that it took after the fact, and that really is quite a shame. (PvE is boring)

      Also, Arena was indeed a mistake, as it was never part of the original vision. The classes were designed for a world (for example, in the case of rogue) and BG (for example, in the case of warriors and their healers) environment, not a shoebox. For evidence of this, see the long, long list of class changes starting with 2.1, and continuing to this day. (Almost all that have to do with PvP are related to Arena, much to the chagrin of non-arena players) Chilton and others came up with the arena for TBC when it became obvious WoW was a hit, and since it was their new cash cow, maybe they could capitalize on it further with sponsored tournaments to attract the pro-gaming scene. You can see how well that has worked though, since as I said, WoW was never designed for an Arena, only world PvP/BGs. So you shouldn't be taking any comments regarding Arena as evidence that WoW is a PvE game, as that's not accurate at all.

    35. Re:Going back on their word by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      That kind of "PvP" is a lot more common these days (or was until Blizzard decided to deploy "countermeasures").

      Back in vanilla it was more about actual fights (this was back when reaching level 60 was an accomplishment in itself and a few level 50s could at least have a chance against a level 60), these days you zoom to 85 and you're pretty much untouchable by anyone lower than level 81-82...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    36. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember world PvP in three main scenarios:

      1: The TM/SS battles, with TM usually being void of quest mobs for hours on end (back when Horde was like 1/10 the Ally pop.)

      2: On PvP areas, the people who spent their whole lives just sitting on the border of newbie zones (Ashenvale, near Barrens) just hoping to corpse camp anybody hapless enough to step over.

      3: The people who would attack some city and when people their level came flying in, camp out to their alt until everyone left, then hop on their guy and keep killing quest mobs.

      Combine that with the fact that WoW always has a FoTM class that you either play, or become that class's bitch. However this plagues all MMOs. RIFT, you either use a cookie cutter soul layout, or you will be repeatedly face-planted by those who do.

    37. Re:Going back on their word by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Blizzard has gone back on so many things they were once publicly opposed to, from PvE-to-PvP transfers to the purchasing of gold using real-world money. And it all began after Activision got involved.

      Yep. I stayed out of WoW, so my first experience under Activision was StarCraft 2, and man did the experience suck. The game was fine, but the policies and other crap associated with battle.net 2.0... damn.

      I suppose Activision's already running out of blood from Blizzard, so they need fresh blood to squeeze money out of. Say, like Bungie. Perhaps that's the business model - take fine game companies with good records of producing good games and squeeze every penny out of them.

    38. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. fellow AC, you are the one who is incorrect

      Many players PvPing is just a player preference/activity. It doesn't change the actual game content that the devs have took time to develop.

      And the fact is: most of the development went into PvE (that is not the say PvP isn't a *part* of the game, but it is a smaller, secondary part)

      The fact that people prefer the secondary part over the primary part is probably seen as a problem on Bliz's part, one which they went to fix by introducing BGs and all the subsequent moves to kill the "good old days"

      You may think it's great that people stop caring for PvE after level 40 and fight in SS vs TM, but the devs were probably thinking "oh no! we made all these fancy PvE zones, dungeons, and raids and nobody's going to them" and "why are these high level people still hanging around a low level area like Hillsbrad?"

    39. Re:Going back on their word by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      WoW didn't have any of those "fancy" raids back then, only a handful of dungeons, and most zones were in fact PvP. Only PvE zones were starter zones. Even cities were PvP.

    40. Re:Going back on their word by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Know your WoW terminology. It's called TRH, short for "That Retarded Horse".

      http://www.warcraftmovies.com/movieview.php?id=146009

    41. Re:Going back on their word by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      In most cases you don't leave a game "because there's something better to do". You leave it because you get bored with it, or some major feature annoys you enough to get you to quit.

      I would imagine that pay-to-win would certainly qualify as "feature that annoys you enough to quit" for many people.

    42. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WoW didn't have any of those "fancy" raids back then, only a handful of dungeons

      Still more compare that to the number of PvP instances (zero, there were no BGs on release)

      and most zones were in fact PvP. Only PvE zones were starter zones. Even cities were PvP.

      No, most zones were in fact PvE: it's where you find all the PvE mobs and quests. PvP just happen to also occur in PvE zones because PvPers don't have their own zones (BGs, arenas, Wintergrasp)

    43. Re:Going back on their word by ildon · · Score: 1

      Hell, Gnomeregan was supposed to be a raid at first, as evidenced by the fact that right up until near the middle of WotLK you could form a 10 man raid and go there.

      Not exactly. Originally you could form a raid and bring 40 players into ANY dungeon in the game. The only restrictions were that you could not complete quests (which could be circumvented by dropping group, completing the quest, and being reinvited before the 60 second timer was up) and only receiving 10% of normal experience from killing monsters (AFTER having that XP be split N ways, N being the size of the group).

      So while I can't say with 100% certainty that Gnomeregan was never at any point intended to be a raid, I can say with certainty that being able to bring 6-40 people in there was not an artifact of its raid or non-raid status, because that is something that was true of ALL dungeons.

    44. Re:Going back on their word by ildon · · Score: 1

      Oh, additionally, Alterac Valley was always intended to be a part of the game, at least since mid beta. It was intended to be like first person DOTA (streams of NPCs fighting along a path guarded by towers, with players assisting the NPCs in taking down those towers and eventually the final base). It was also intended to be part of the game world like Wintergrasp eventually was, until they realized their hardware couldn't handle it and came up with the idea to instance it, thus creating the concept of battlegrounds.

      I guess you can argue that an open world AV would have still been "world pvp", and I won't argue that at its core this game as always been primarily a PvE game (just look at how they've all but abandoned PvP arena balance, especially after the game failed as an "e-sport", in order to be less disruptive to PvE balance), but you can't try to use non-facts to support your argument.

    45. Re:Going back on their word by ildon · · Score: 2

      Maybe you missed the fact that a couple months after release there were about 4 PvE servers for every 1 PvP server, and the PvE servers were more crowded. The only reason PvP servers are even remotely popular now (and they still continue to be less popular than PvE servers) is that even the PvP servers are safe due to safe/sanctuary zones and instanced PvP taking most PvPers out of the world. I played exclusively on PvP servers when the game came out, so I'm fully aware of how the game was back then, but I'm not delusional enough to think that just because I played a certain way and all my friends did, that we were not the minority.

    46. Re:Going back on their word by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that pay-to-win would certainly qualify as "feature that annoys you enough to quit" for many people.

      For me, it was trying to be a tank or healer in the cesspool that is random cross-realm LFG. (And since they took out the "same-server-only" option, don't start up with "form your own group". It doesn't work any more.)

      It was like empirical proof of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    47. Re:Going back on their word by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2

      You could argue that money for RMT gained through auctions can possibly increase the gold supply (as players may farm stuff that creates gold just to buy the stuff off the auctions) but that is an indirect increase in supply at best.

      Not unless those items can be sold to vendors.

      Money being transferred from a NPC (who has limitless funds) to you is a "faucet".

      Money transferred from a player to a NPC is a "drain" or "sink".

      Money transferred between players has zilch all effect on the total amount of money in circulation. At best, it can be a minor sink due to fees.

      If faucet money is greater then sink money, you get inflation. If sink quantity is greater then faucet quantity, you get deflation. Deflation is much less likely then inflation because players will simply go run do more faucet activities to pay for the money sinks. So over time, inflation tends to be how things usually go as higher tiers of content have to reward more money/effort over lower tier content (otherwise players will not migrate to the new content).

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    48. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how you can possibly see the game as being more PVP focused now; they've more or less completely given up on organized PVP balance, and even specs that were traditionally balanced for PVP first (ex. Frost Mages, Arms Warriors) are now changed in favor of PVE over PVP.
      They haven't added any PVP content since the release of Cataclysm, and what was added in Cataclysm is either completely copy pasted (Twin Peaks) borderline broken (Gilneas) or completely and totally worthless with no hope of a fix in sight (Tol'Barad).
      The arena ladders were broken for several months, only to be given a fix that didn't actually fix anything until the reset. (Which is of course, dictated by PVE tiers, not anything to do with PVP).
      There is absolutely nothing that suggests Blizzard cares whatsoever about PVP in WOW at this point; you might've been able to make such an argument in BC and Wrath, but it's exceedingly hard to do so now.

    49. Re:Going back on their word by Loveless62 · · Score: 2

      It still gives an advantage to those that are willing to pay real money for game money. No new gold is created, but it does allow people to pool the existing money by buying multiples of the pet and selling them to accumulate wealth. Since gear can be bought with gold, this will give the players that are willing to spend real money an advantage over those that are not willing to or cannot afford to.

    50. Re:Going back on their word by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Ok, my girlfriend and I started playing WoW about 2 months ago. SHE was the one that came to ME after we both poo-poo'd the purchased mounts. They're usable by all characters in one realm for that person, and the thing goes faster as you get better mounts. Basically, it's not just vanity, it actually helps lots of your characters get around. The way we see it, they're offering some value for what we might pay. Drinking the kool-aid? A little, I'm sure.

      --
      -
    51. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MC was not available at the start. UBRS used to be a 40 man raid. Blizzard doesn't know anything about PVP and failed miserably. I'd also agree it is obvious the devs hate arena and pvp.

    52. Re:Going back on their word by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      It was actually stated outright in the making of WoW DVD in the Classic collectors edition.

    53. Re:Going back on their word by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Um, PVE servers in which there were no PVP zones if you didn't want there to be outnumbered PVP servers 4 to 1 at release and were MORE CROWDED. In fact the most crowded PVE servers then are still the most crowded servers today. There is no PVP server that suffers from queue times to log on, meanwhile its a common occurance on some of the PVE servers.

    54. Re:Going back on their word by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      AV was intended as a PVE raid originally. Learn more about something before you post about others "non-facts"

      It WAS intended to be an outdoor raid, similar to many EQ raids. However this would have caused some inherent PVP in the zone. When BG's became a popular time killer they just repurposed the whole deal.

      I mean, this shit is all even in the "Making Of" Collectors edition DVD that came with Classic, straight from the devs mouth, on camera no less.

    55. Re:Going back on their word by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Except that it was mentioned in the NAME of the zone that it was PvP (contested area).

      Still is in fact.

    56. Re:Going back on their word by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It does tbh. Before I quit in the beginning of this year, I did form dungeon groups quite a lot, since I cba to tank (I was a death knight main since the beginning of wrath). I had the gear for since I was offspec tank in raids when needed, but I was DPS main and I preferred to have fun seeing who could win on meters.
      As a result our runs were always extremely fast, and we rarely had problems getting people to fill most spots. We may have sometimes needed to grab one person from LFG tool, but that's not much of a problem, even when missing person is a tank. If we got a baddie, we kickvote him out, I slap on my tank gear and spec and we move on.

    57. Re:Going back on their word by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Not true on EU at least. The most crowded servers are the ones with many decent guilds, and these have long migrated to PvP servers. This issue has been massively bemoaned by people who wanted to join good guilds, but couldn't because they rolled on a PvE server and couldn't migrate to PvP. Open EU forums from the time before PvE to PvP migration was allowed, and you'll notice that they couldn't go a week without new thread on "I want to join a good PvE guild, and all good PvE guilds are on PvP realms" topic.

      As far as I know, similar trend was also on US side, though I didn't follow that nearly as closely so I cannot say for certain. Therefore I'm quite uncertain where you draw your 4:1 and more crowded claims from.

    58. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redshore? Really?

    59. Re:Going back on their word by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      I don't see how you can possibly see the game as being more PVP focused now; they've more or less completely given up on organized PVP balance, and even specs that were traditionally balanced for PVP first (ex. Frost Mages, Arms Warriors) are now changed in favor of PVE over PVP.

      It used to be that the game was designed for PvE with PvP being something you could do on the side (as in, world PvP, no battlegrounds or arena, no ladders or such things). And if you look at the players there are a lot more players who play for PvP these days, it used to be that PvP was something you did when you had some time to kill ("hey, let's go to hillsbrad!").

      [...] totally worthless with no hope of a fix in sight (Tol'Barad).

      The worst thing about Tol'Barad was the win-trading that went on before they "fixed" it. Lots of annoying gankers who got their first full set of PvP gear thanks to that...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    60. Re:Going back on their word by ildon · · Score: 1

      Now I know you're full of shit.

    61. Re:Going back on their word by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      From forum announcements on the US side. I never paid attention to the EU so you could be right there - I wouldn't know.

      I was playing since beta.

    62. Re:Going back on their word by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Sigh, I guess I should pay attention to the "Do Not Feed" sign you should have hanging around your neck however:

      The dvd is available for download in several locations. Download it, watch it, be enlightened.

    63. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shows how much you knew about beta:

      1. PVP servers were already running in beta, not after release. You have no idea how fun beta PVP was, esp when certain classes seriously overpowered others (ex: paladins turn-undead > any undead class.)

      2. 40 man was the raid limit during beta, which changed when the developers realized people were abusing it. You could go into ANY instance with any amount of people and still loot/complete quests/gain XP. They stealth changed this during beta so that if you entered with more than the alloted amount, nobody would gain XP. Right before release they put actual caps in place to prevent you from even going in.

      3. Battlegrounds weren't released until over a year after WoW was publically launched. Battlegrounds killed world PVP, plain and simple.

    64. Re:Going back on their word by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Tongue in cheek, "there are good guild on US side"?

      Seriously though, yes I play on EU and it was a huge problem, with forum posts bemoaning "I am on PvE realm, and all good guilds are on PvE, and I can't join one if I reroll!" on a weekly basis until the migration was allowed.

    65. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the name is just that - a name. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

      Looking at that: in most zones, PvE is the de facto (not just in name) base state. PvP is something that players create on top of the PvE environment (one motivation to PvP was to disrupt PvE activities, which implies that PvE is the "normal" activity, and PvP is the activity which disrupts it)

      This is in contrast to say a battleground, where the "normal" activity is to PvP, and it would be a disruption if, say, somebody puts on roleplay gear and start looking for people to cyber.

      The "PvP" moniker is in name only, and has more to do with the PvE lore (whether or not the zone is "in control" of one faction or the other, or if it's "contested") than actual "player versus player" activity.

      Still is in fact

    66. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got bored of the PVP conquest grind after 2-3 months. However, with new raids being introduced every couple months, the PVE content provides much more enjoyment than pointless PVP.

    67. Re:Going back on their word by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I suppose that is one way to look at it. Another is very well presented in the forums: "I want to level on a PvP server and not get constantly ganked" vs "It's a PvP server stupid".

    68. Re:Going back on their word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warsong (a PvP West) have got queues at rush hour, at night.

    69. Re:Going back on their word by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      subscription fee AND a cash shop ... that must a brandnew business model then, it's like stealing from junkies

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    70. Re:Going back on their word by Kream · · Score: 1

      I feel sad for people not on my server. Emerald Dream is an RP-PVP server (RolePlay+PVP) and world PVP is tremendous here. Our server is busy and balanced and there are several guilds, from behemoth PVP-only ones to colossal RP+PVP ones, to RP-friendly ones to small boutique dwarf-only or troll-only ones. The RP informs and invigorates our PVP and I and dozens of friends of mine would not be playing if it weren't for this server.

  2. Sensationalist Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Give me a break. This doesn't add any money to the economy. It's a blob of polygons that follows you around if you pay real/fake money for it. This headline is crap.

    1. Re:Sensationalist Bullshit by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Informative
      1. Player A purchases pet for real-world money
      2. Player A puts pet up for sale in in-game auction house
      3. Player B buys pet for in-game currency ("gold")
      4. Player A receives in-game currency

      THAT is what was meant with "WoW To Add Avenue For Real-Money Gold Buying". Just as there are plenty of people with real-world money to spend there are plenty of people in-game with too much gold to spend, to them it makes more sense to just throw some gold at it rather than buying the pet using real money.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Sensationalist Bullshit by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      Thank you for explaining that, I was totally lost as to what the hell the description was trying to convey.

    3. Re:Sensationalist Bullshit by MPAB · · Score: 1

      Player B sells pet to Player C for real-world money and resumes mining
      Player C becomes new Player A

    4. Re:Sensationalist Bullshit by oztiks · · Score: 1

      Obviously blizzard is establishing some of stimulus package for Orgrimmer. Those lazy ass trolls keep up with the protesting out the front of the AH there's gonna be trouble!

    5. Re:Sensationalist Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That exact scenario has been possible with TCG cards for a while, and we haven't seen the complete collapse of the in game economy.

    6. Re:Sensationalist Bullshit by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Why would player C buy it from player B for real money, when they could buy it from blizzard for real money?

    7. Re:Sensationalist Bullshit by keytoe · · Score: 1

      That exact scenario has been possible with TCG cards for a while, and we haven't seen the complete collapse of the in game economy.

      There is a finite (and very small) supply of valuable TCG cards. There are an infinite number of these pets available in the Blizzard store.

  3. Eve did it first... by JoeLinux · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Eve online did it first, and paid a price for doing it incorrectly...they've since apologized and said they will roll it out right.

    Meanwhile, WoW is hemorrhaging users...this can only further accelerate their departure, as people find a game with more meaning...Should provide some tasty n00bs to pod...

    1. Re:Eve did it first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. Eve did this with plexes (buy this, trade for isk) a long time ago and it has been a stable part of the economy. The recent apology was for the stupid incarna expansion crap.

    2. Re:Eve did it first... by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 2

      This is more along the lines of a PLEX, not the Noble Exchange or Aurum. That was done properly and was in place way before Incarna was planned.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    3. Re:Eve did it first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still upset a lot of players though. A lot of them believe that the status of a person's real-world finances should have no bearing at all on their in-game abilities, and get rather annoyed when they have to grind for hours to pay for ships that someone with real money to burn could buy easily by selling PLEX.

    4. Re:Eve did it first... by Rogerborg · · Score: 0

      I think EVE's crowning achievement is that it introduced pay-to-win in such an obfuscated jargon laden way that to this day, players still won't admit even to themselves that there are super-capitals out there that were flat out bought with credit cards.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Eve did it first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of them believe that the status of a person's real-world finances should have no bearing at all on their in-game abilities

      And anybody who believes that is a fucking idiot.

      You've got these trust-fund babies out there multi-boxing on high-end computers, 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. That is a direct reflection of their real-life assets in the in-game world.
      And then people bitch because some poor slob who works 80 hours a week, and manages to grab a few hours to play in-between real-life responsibilities, wants to be able to see some content by paying a little cash to make a noticeable advance in the game world.

      Seriously, it has nothing to do with "representations of real-life wealth". It's all about flaunting your E-Penis; those who have all the Gear, etc. want to keep as many people from getting it as possible, to maintain their perceived social elite status.

      It it had anything to do with skill, I might understand, but it doesn't- it's simply how much time you can invest into the game. And no, I'm not advocating a full "cash for levels" type of system, but there is some (limited) amount of room for trading real-life cash for real-life time.

    6. Re:Eve did it first... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      If you read that "apology", I think you'll find that all they're apologising for is not selling enough different types of monocles, or having the gym, hot tub and Cyber-Skank Singles Bar areas ready for Arcana.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Eve did it first... by dcollins · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    8. Re:Eve did it first... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      It's not that they don't want to admit it, they are just happy about it. Someone who just spent some $ for his internet spaceship is much more likely to be an idiot that flies around without support. So they make for some mighty fine killmails.

    9. Re:Eve did it first... by g4b · · Score: 1

      additionally, you still need to build that stuff.

      capitals just dont drop from the air. first you have to get "some" veldspar and stuff.

      so basicly even if the player pays in eve to be a rich kid, he still needs to wait for skills, and somebody else needs to mine and build his ships.
      money is gone fast in eve if you got no clue what you do.

    10. Re:Eve did it first... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Yes, they're hemorrhaging. They've dropped from capturing 54% of the mmo market down to a measly 52% Whatever shall they do.

    11. Re:Eve did it first... by MrMickS · · Score: 1

      No. This is more like the Noble Exchange. Its a vanity item that can be traded for in game currency. PLEX are not a vanity item as they have a use that consumes them.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    12. Re:Eve did it first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's like PLEX, except that this isn't a consumable item, so eventually, everyone who wants one will get one, and then there will be no demand and a ton of supply.

    13. Re:Eve did it first... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      People had no problem with the PLEXes after a while. PLEXes allowed things to work both ways - players could earn in-game money to buy game-time cards (and thus not spend real money), and people could in turn spend money to buy PLEXes and sell them.

      It was a very simple tradeoff. Do you spend 30 or so hours grinding ISK to save $15? If that's worth your time, great. If not, you can switch things around and save time grinding for ISK by buying PLEXes.

      When they added a new currency which basically turned into a cash-only shop (in a paid MMO), that really irked people (and for good reason).

    14. Re:Eve did it first... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Aye. You can't ignore all the underlying economic activity that has to happen in EVE. Mining, Refining, Construction.

      Even if you can buy a super cap it will still take 6 weeks just to built it so unless people have super caps lying around they're will to sell it's not an instant transfer.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    15. Re:Eve did it first... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Eve did what first? Allowing you to buy ingame items for real world money and then turn around and sell them for ingame money? Nope - Puzzle Pirates did that first with the Doubloon Exchange back in 2005.

    16. Re:Eve did it first... by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      You've got these trust-fund babies out there multi-boxing on high-end computers

      Oh please. I used to run two instances of Eve on the same medium range box at the same time. MMOs aren't about how much money you have, they're about how much time you can devote...and always have been. Well...actually gold sellers make it about how much money you have. But hardware has never had much of an effect on MMOs.

    17. Re:Eve did it first... by virgnarus · · Score: 1

      Even this statement is kind of a misnomer. The 'cash-only' shop relied on PLEX being turned into another more granular currency, and since people could acquire PLEX through ingame ISK, they could purchase clothing without paying a real dime. Plus it was all optional and vanity so people were disappointed but not really angry, at least not to this specific case.

      What got them really distressed was that the past couple expansions have delivered almost nothing satisfactory for gameplay and instead offered vanity junk like this. The trend got the community very peeved off, and getting insider quotes about adding game-changing items to the store (which was taken outta context) amongst other leaked info ended up being the proverbial straw to the camel's back. The direction was neglecting EVE and using it as an experimental testbed for Dust and WoD, so you can imagine it was just a progressively aggravated situation until something got people to snap.

    18. Re:Eve did it first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you spend 30 or so hours grinding ISK to save $15?

      No. I take 4, and it's with people that i enjoy playing with and i have fun.

      Incursions 4tw

    19. Re:Eve did it first... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I think EVE's crowning achievement is that it introduced pay-to-win in such an obfuscated jargon laden way that to this day, players still won't admit even to themselves that there are super-capitals out there that were flat out bought with credit cards.

      Yawn, mostly we don't care, because we can band together and blow up those scaps. Made even easier after the coming nerfs to super-caps.

      At the same time, the other reason we don't care is because PLEX does not magically add ISK to the game. So it has zilch effect on inflation (except that it makes large sums of ISK more likely to move from older to newer players).

      Plus, CCP got their cut, which means more money for dev salaries and maybe improved content.

      PLEX takes a lot of the wind out of RMT sails, now CCP just needs to get better about banning the botters (who do cause inflation by getting NPC bounties or mission rewards non-stop 23x7).

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    20. Re:Eve did it first... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately if you're in a group smaller than 10 decent players with good skill training, incursions are not really an option. They're sort of a "winner takes all" situation.

  4. Market rules will deflate the value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Pet quantity is not limited
    - Pet can be bought by anyone
    -> Market will be flooded with pets.

    - Pet can be only be acquired once per char
    - People with most assets (gold) will be playing actively
    -> Market will soon shrink, when all the active players have their vanity pets.

    This will just lead to very poor cash->gold conversion rate. Even though the idea is fine, market rules will favour early adopters and leave just about everybody else out in the cold. Chinese provide cheaper service, where risks involve around getting caught or not. Risks with pet selling are about the perceived value of the pet, which will be low.

  5. Ex player. by matt007 · · Score: 1

    I first encountered WoW when I played the US beta, almost immediately stopped playing Everquest.
    I then played the European beta, and bought the game as soon as it released.

    I had tons of fun in the first years, then it slowly went downhill.
    Arenas suck, resilience suck, extensions are way too slow and too small.
    Microtransactions suck.
    and worst of all, the community at least on french-speaking servers is AWFUL.

    1. Re:Ex player. by Ironhandx · · Score: 2

      Its pretty god-awful everywhere. The Community doesn't exist anymore. What you have now are a bunch of gamers better suited to playing FPS's that thrive on instant gratification and barely even interacts with the community.

      Those that do seek some sort of pleasure out of it for the most part. These consist largely of trolls etc.

      There are a very very few like myself, and perhaps yourself, left that are genuinely helpful and relatively patient.

      Most of us have quit already, I know I have.

    2. Re:Ex player. by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      March '05 I made my account. It was a blast, and you're right, there used to be community. People would talk (or more often flame) in general and you could have a name on your server. Sooner or later that disappeared with cross faction BGs and instances. Up until a couple of patches ago, the guy you just did UBRS with you'll never see again most likely. Even if you did become RealID friends and started queuing together, you still won't get the same friendship as someone on your server.

      I log in here and there but I'm debating on just canceling it and putting that $15/mo towards something else, maybe another MMO if I can find the ambition.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    3. Re:Ex player. by mlts · · Score: 1

      I'd say, try EQ2, or if you want something retro, EQ1. Yes, these games have been around a while, but they do have a solid sense of community. At the minimum, you know the trolls and the trolls are actually trying to use their heads to try to heat up 1-9 or PR chat.

      Yes, EQ2 has items you can buy in the marketplace, but it is limited to mounts, XP potions (double xp for a period of time), a rent-free house, appearance gear, and the ability to buy added character slots.

      Of course, EQ2 isn't perfect, but I play MMOs because I like the people, and one can find some very cool people who are capable of more than just four letter epithets to group/guild with.

      EQ1 is also good at this, although the game engine is a bit dated. If you can deal with that, there is an insane amount of game content -- you will never get bored, even when you hit the max level.

    4. Re:Ex player. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Most of us have quit already, I know I have.

      Or we went back to EVE, which, as much as it can be a cess-pool of griefing, also has its fine share of upstanding members. And since there is no "level to 85, win arena matches, get I WIN button to use in world PvP or BGs", the short-attention-span folks don't last long enough in EVE to be more then a mosquito bite.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  6. It's about damn time by Saintwolf · · Score: 1

    Now hopefully this will destroy the economy of those pesky gold sellers and their endless trade spam.

    1. Re:It's about damn time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The google RSS-newsfeed of this news was accompanied with an ad from gold4fun.com.
      Talk about targeted marketing...

    2. Re:It's about damn time by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 1

      Now hopefully this will destroy the economy of those pesky gold sellers and their endless trade spam.

      What spam? Haven't seen one in a long time. Get some decent spam filter add-on.

  7. How about getting rid of the miserable gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently tried it again after several years absence. I never kept an account for more than a month at a time. Either trolls or bad gameplay drove me away. This time I canceled my account after a couple of days. After the first few days I kept having this BS thing happen where the sky would go orange and suddenly my character died. After the second time I asked WTF? Turns out it's supposed to be a bloody dragon. Well third time I tried to log out as soon as I saw red. Well this automatically kills your character. My response? I canceled my account and have no plans to ever try WoW again. The truly lifeless might get off on dying randomly as game play but I have better things to do with my time and money. There's a reason for all the trolls in WoW. Only the trolls enjoy that kind of game play. I love massive environments but the game play has always been lousy and it keeps getting worse.

    1. Re:How about getting rid of the miserable gameplay by nordee · · Score: 1

      If you stay out of the Hinterlands the trolls might not bother you so much.

      --
      still no sig
    2. Re:How about getting rid of the miserable gameplay by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 2

      After the first few days I kept having this BS thing happen where the sky would go orange and suddenly my character died. After the second time I asked WTF? Turns out it's supposed to be a bloody dragon.

      You "kept having?!" Players are actively seeking out the areas where Death Wing is flying over because it earns you an achievement. ;)

      Well third time I tried to log out as soon as I saw red. Well this automatically kills your character. My response? I canceled my account and have no plans to ever try WoW again. The truly lifeless might get off on dying randomly as game play but I have better things to do with my time and money.

      I have many characters and I think I have seem Death Wing about three times since the expansion came out. You are either very lucky or very unlucky - depending on how you see it. Really, dying from a fly over by Death Wing is not a problem.

    3. Re:How about getting rid of the miserable gameplay by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Like anyone goes to the Hinterlands anymore.

      And, for the record, I fucking HATE troll lore. Lamest race in the game by a looong stretch. And yes, I am including Goblins in that analysis.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
  8. Blizzard has already been doing this for 2 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they released patch 3.2 back in 2009, they made many of the biggest-draw WoW Trading Card Game rewards non-binding and tradeable -- and sellable on the Auction House. For a while, people have been able to put in a real-world monetary investment in obtaining these 'loot cards', cash in the loot code in-game, and then sell the reward to others for gold. This was done in reaction to rampant scamming that was occurring where people were promising to sell codes to other players for gold.

    This proposed little vanity pet is just simply Blizzard cutting out the middle man and selling a vanity item that can then be in-turn sold in game.

    Also worth considering that if one pays attention to gold-spam in the game itself, some of the spammers advertise the sale of the Winged Guardian mount codes in exchange of gold (which normally winds up being a scam, the resulting gold then laundered and sold on some site along with the fruits of account hackings).

    I can honestly say that this is just part of a bigger picture of Blizzard simply providing means to a market that a lot of the game's players are largely in denial over -- RMT is rampant, and it's gotten to the point where it infringes on the account safety of players who don't even engage in RMT sales/misconduct. The 3rd parties who do the account hackings rely on a customerbase that wants to trade in their money for gold in the game. If Blizzard surreptitiously provides a means for the ends of someone just wanting to plug down 20 dollars to make it so that they can get their flight training done and down, that takes away the power of the network of account phishers/hackers that are employed by Goldseller companies.

  9. Will the new ActiBliz keep Bliz fans? by yacwroy · · Score: 1

    Now that every (ex)fan has had a decent taste of Activision-Blizzard, It will be interesting to see how well their next few products do.

    Do consumers actually pay attention to corporate ethics any more? Time to find out.

    --
    You agree with me.
  10. Gold to Dollar converion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These pets will cost $10, at current prices for warcraft gold $10 will net you 8333 gold.

    I don't see many players paying 8000 plus gold for one of these pets so there will still be a good market for the gold farmers/sellers.

    1. Re:Gold to Dollar converion. by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised at how much gold a lot of in-game items are worth at the auction house.

      There's been heavy inflation going on for quite some time, items comparable to what used to be very expensive 2000G items are now selling for 20-25kG on many realms ("comparable" when compared to what the current top tier of equipment and items is).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Gold to Dollar converion. by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 1

      I don't see many players paying 8000 plus gold for one of these pets

      You sound like 8000g was a lot.

      But you are still right. Since those pets are easy to come by (just look how many players have those pay-for mounts) they will be worth *less* than rare pets that can be found in game. And *those* are traded for around 8000 to 10000g.

  11. Too many game related posts on this site by morikahnx · · Score: 0

    Is it just me, or has the amount of video game related posts on slashdot risen dramatically over the last couple years. There are so many web sites focused solely on gaming, I doesn't need to creep into here as well. This is such a non-news item.

    1. Re:Too many game related posts on this site by desdinova+216 · · Score: 0

      and yet you took the time to post in this thread.

  12. Dammit... by Therilith · · Score: 1

    Another game lost to MTX...

    If this is "the future of MMO gaming", I'm glad I got out before I had to see it firsthand.

  13. This won't hurt the economy at all. by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    This doesn't hurt the economy at all. No gold is materialized, so it's no more detrimental to the economy than someone buying and selling a rare item they found on a mob in the auction house. When I first read the headline I assumed you could actually buy gold or something. I don't think this is as bad as people seem to be blowing it up to be.

    There isn't going to be a huge market for this item in the way something like PLEX is in EVE. It's a pet. The pet collectors out there will get it one way or another and then it will be very slow going.

  14. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone read REAMDE.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by polemistes · · Score: 1

      Yes, and then they figured they also want some terrorist mafia action in their life.

  15. This is another way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of saying "lets make some money before the game is totally dead..."

    WoW has decreased in popularity recently and instead of trying to support or revive the game for all its gaming history they decide to squeeze the last few breaths out of it. It reminds me when Palm sold its own name, then its OS, then decided that the world is not going to end and started looking for alternatives.

    This is typical short-sighted management.

  16. I think that game is dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I played that game way to much, so now I do not recommend it under any circumstances to anybody. I have also talked to people who have family members that had people playing too much of that game. That game and counterstrike are the two games I associate with most damage to society. I believe all the other games are harmless, but when it comes to those two games I have too many stories where things turned really bad. So, my policy when it comes to gaming is any game but CS or WoW. People can argue in any directions about if those games are bad or not, but I got my experiences and I suggest you also study your experiences about that game and make up your mind about them.

    1. Re:I think that game is dangerous by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      how about a little more detail and what is so dangerous about CS and WoW?

  17. Sorry, that happened well over a year ago by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    the Trading Card game featured items you could sell in game for ridiculous amounts of money and Blizzard even sanctioned that.

    They are not adding gold to the game, they are simply giving another means of it moving from character to character. It is most likely that the costs in game for the pet will quickly tank which might push off a lot of buyers.

    What does not bode well is that pets sold to players from Blizzard now take on the trading card game limitation of one time use instead of account wide use. This raises the cost of buying a pet for your account by 1000% or more.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  18. And so by DrXym · · Score: 1

    WoW's transition to F2P begins. It'll probably be a better game for it too.

  19. Blizzard has lost their way by Tridus · · Score: 2

    Given the rate at which WoW is losing subscribers (nearly a million in 2 quarters this year), you'd think they'd refocus on things that are actually good for the game.

    Alas, nope. Instead they're focused on milking the cow as much as possible. This is just another example, the last one was trying to charge people to group with their friends. Blizzard eventually backed off on that, but the push has been growing from them for a while. It seems subscriptions aren't good enough for them anymore despite an incredible lack of content being added to the game these days.

    Oh well. It was fun while it lasted, but all things must come to an end.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Blizzard has lost their way by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      It's all about priorities, activision wants a return on investment and will do anything to get it. In the last year they have lost 1 million subs, went from a 2 raid to 1 raid per tier citing time issues. They excuse lack of storage space due to DB size. They still have some of the longest maintenance in the industry. It's a death spiral right now and they are still making piles of money. All the competent staff seems to have moved onto there next generation project.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Blizzard has lost their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you that the storage space and DB size connection is just laughable. Diablo III will have more storage available than WoW has, and it doesn't have a monthly fee and it's from Blizzard too. Storing an item shouldn't take more than 4 or perhaps at most 8 bytes. Add an obscene amount of overhead and that becomes a million items in 20 megabytes. If each player has 1000 items total on their account (I'm thinking most have a lot less) that means each player takes up 20 kilobytes on items, and it's probably much less than that. So they are saying that they can't store more than 20 kilobytes on a server for 15$ a month? That's ridiculous! If the cost cutting has gotten to that level, it's time to drop the game.

    3. Re:Blizzard has lost their way by Godai · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. When did we get two raids per tier?

      1.0 - Onyxia & Molten Core (1 tier, 2 raids)
      1.6 - Blackwing Lair (1 tier)
      1.9 - The Gates of Ahn'Qiraj (1 tier, unless you count the 20-man)
      1.11 - Shadow of the Necropolis (1 tier)
      2.0 - Magtharidon, SSC, Gruul & TK at launch (2 tiers, 4 raids + KZ)
      2.1 - The Black Temple (1 tier)
      2.4 - Sunwell (1 tier)
      3.0 - Sarthion, Malygos & Nax (3 tiers)
      3.1 - Secrets of Ulduar (1 tier)
      3.2 - Call of the Crusade (1 tier)
      3.3 - Fall of the Lich King (1 tier)
      4.0 - Throne of the Four Winds, Blackwing Descent & Bastion of Twilight (3 tiers)
      4.2 - Rise of the Firelands (1 tier)
      4.3 - Deathwing (1 tier)

      So, how exactly have things changed? I keep hearing that we got more in the old days, but I'm not seeing it. The Burning Crusade launched with more raids (though only 13 bosses total across all four, same as Cataclysm if you include the heroic-only boss you need to unlock) but other than that, its been pretty consistent on what you get. As far as I can tell they've never included more than one raid per patch and only multiple raids per tier on expansions -- and those are fairly consistent in content as well (Karazhan being the notable exception, but its hard to classify since it was the only 10-man at launch).

      Also, they've never claimed lack of storage space was a database issue. They've said that storage space isn't unlimited because they want people to make decisions about what they keep. Frankly, I'm with them on this one -- I played Ultima Online and one of the first things Origin discovered is that in an unlimited space world you get weird goddamn behaviour from people. I remember them citing examples like one dude who stockpiled a 100,000 shirts in his bank. People are strange!

      --
      Wood Shavings!
      - Godai
    4. Re:Blizzard has lost their way by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      They promised multiple raids per tier in cata to compensate for the new shared lockouts. Shorter raids and more of them. They claimed not enough time to finish the other 4.3 raid.

      The void storage stripping everything off is a storage issue as in they do not want to keep those extra attributes. The keyring removal was explicitly stated as an issue of space http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2548839953

      The cata mantra was smaller faster patches with more content. So far were at best on par, and looking at 12 months of a single raid again.

      Overall I still enjoy the game but it's looking like EQ post Sony where you got the sense of accountants running the roost not game developers.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    5. Re:Blizzard has lost their way by ildon · · Score: 1

      It wasn't to "compensate for the shared lockouts" it was so that you weren't staring at the same fucking background all week. I guess they figured if they just made little raids you wouldn't be in there long enough for it to be as draining.

    6. Re:Blizzard has lost their way by Loveless62 · · Score: 1

      A better way to understand why WoW players are feeling shortchanged by the most recent content patches, it helps to look at the number of raid bosses delivered, not the number of raids themselves. And no, I am not counting heroic modes as new bosses; adding one or two mechanics to a fight does not make a whole new boss.

      1.0 - Onyxia & Molten Core - 11 bosses
      1.6 - Blackwing Lair - 8 bosses
      1.9 - The Gates of Ahn'Qiraj - 15 bosses
      1.11 - Shadow of the Necropolis - 15 bosses
      49 bosses for vanilla Wow

      2.0 - Karazhan, Magtheridon, SSC, Gruul, TK, & Hyjal at launch - 29 bosses (if you don't count the Karazhan animal bosses and the different opera events as separate bosses)
      2.1 - The Black Temple - 9 bosses
      2.3 - Zul Aman - 6 bosses
      2.4 - Sunwell (1 tier) - 7 bosses
      51 bosses for BC

      3.0 - Sarthion, Malygos & Nax - 17 bosses
      3.1 - Secrets of Ulduar - 14 bosses
      3.2 - Call of the Crusade - 5 bosses
      3.3 - Fall of the Lich King + Ruby Sanctum - 13 bosses
      48 bosses for Wotlk

      4.0 - Throne of the Four Winds, Blackwing Descent & Bastion of Twilight - 13 bosses
      4.2 - Rise of the Firelands - 7 bosses
      4.3 - Dragon Soul - 8 bosses
      28 bosses for Cataclysm

      This makes Cataclysm look paltry compared to the rest of the expansions.

      If you did want to count heroic bosses as separate bosses, then you could double the figure for Cataclysm to 56 bosses, but then the number of bosses in WotLK would raise to 78 bosses:
      3.0 - Sarthion, Malygos & Nax - 17 normal modes and 1 hard mode (Sartharion + 3 drakes)
      3.1 - Secrets of Ulduar - 13 normal modes and 10 hard modes, plus Algalon (who had no normal mode)
      3.2 - Call of the Crusade - 5 normal modes and 5 hard modes
      3.3 - Fall of the Lich King + Ruby Sanctum - 13 normal modes and 13 hard modes
      In this case Cataclysm looks weak against WotLK. Again, however, I think it is unreasonable to count bosses in heroic modes as separate from the same bosses in normal modes.

    7. Re:Blizzard has lost their way by jwiegley · · Score: 1

      Item ID is a 2 byte value in the game. So every item: 2 bytes + 2 Bytes for enchantment + 3 x 2 bytes for gems + 1 byte for reforge... let's say 2. 12 bytes per item total. Player's can have about 100 bag slots and 200 bank slots for a total of 300. so 300x12 = 3600 bytes/toon. 50 toons max... 180KBytes per account.

      But yes. I agree. Let a player's storage hold more... even if 1 player takes up 1 Megabyte of storage then you can fit 1 million players on a single terabyte hard drive. If blizzard's hard up I'll personally provide them with the three modern drives they need to provide players with essentially unlimited storage.

      --
      I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    8. Re:Blizzard has lost their way by selven · · Score: 1

      Just wondering, if WoW is losing subscribes so quickly than what's replacing it? What are the upstart alternatives, and what's so good about them?

    9. Re:Blizzard has lost their way by dufachi · · Score: 1

      Yet you fail to consider that so far, the Cataclysm expansion is only 11 months old.

      Vanilla - Released 11/04
      2 years and 3 months later: Burning Crusade - Released 01/07
      1 year and 10 months later: Lich King - Released 11/08
      2 years and 1 month later: Cataclysm - Released 12/10

      So, you could either argue that they are fast tracking expansion content now, or they have almost another year to make up for "content updates" (i.e. raid bosses). I use quotes loosely because not everyone appreciates only raid content.

      --
      -Kinsey
  20. WHACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I can buy and sell virtual stuff in WOW or Diablo 3 but I can't play online poker in the US except on some smaller sites?!? Maybe they can launch poker sites

  21. Old news... by nordee · · Score: 2

    T'rain did it first.

    --
    still no sig
    1. Re:Old news... by Erasmas · · Score: 2

      Are we the only ones that have read REAMDE? I think somebody at Blizzard has, that's for sure. One of the next-generation MMOs is going to outright copy T'Rain, and then things will get interesting. Why not allow real money and gold to be interchangeable? Insert Blizzard (or another company) as the currency-exchange (they charge a fee of course), and everybody wins. Those with more time than money can play cheaply and even make money by digging up gold. Those with more money than time can buy gold with real money and get fun stuff.

    2. Re:Old news... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Nope, I suspect a lot of people noticed it.

      I wonder if Neal Stephenson applied for a patent on business method ;)

  22. The next 'Great WoW killer' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the time i was playing, there were always those rumors that the next MMO was the one that would finally knock World of Warcraft off its perch. All that time, I kept saying that the only thing that could kill WoW was Blizzard itself.
    guess I was right, sorta...it took Blizzard being bought out by Activision, THEN killing WoW.

    The silver lining?
    Now new MMOs will have a chance to exist for more than a few months before they implode due to lack of foresight.

  23. Your premise is faulty. by CountBrass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I shouldn't have to need the time and alts in order to play my character,

    In many ways todays WoW is a sad, sold-out reflection of it's early self.

    When I first started playing (US then EU betas and then EU live) running dungeons was fun, exciting, dangerous and sometimes maddeningly frustrating.

    Today running dungeons is like a job. And a tedious, boring, uncreative menial job at that. There's no skill required- and most players won't even tolerate attempts at a more skilful-creative approaches as it introduces risk and might slow down their instance run. Why would spending more time having fun be a problem? The problem is that running instances in WoW now is not fun.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:Your premise is faulty. by errandum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, in the beginning of a new expansion, dungeons are challenging and require skill. And that makes people kick anyone that doesn't meet their gear requirements.

      What "ruined" wow wasn't blizzard, it was the players. In the beginning, everyone was the same. Ignorant and in crappy gear. Nowadays there is this huge pit between the new guy and the old one, leading to elitism and the behavior you expressed. And these guys outgear the dungeon by so much (remember, it was designed to be beaten with crap gear) that there is no need for any kind of organization

      There should be different levels of gear, but with smaller benefits from one tier to the other, so that nothing becomes trivial after you get some "epics". Easier would be ok, trivial is, in my opinion, what killed Wow.

    2. Re:Your premise is faulty. by CountBrass · · Score: 2

      And yet at the beginning of WoW you could get on the early raids (UBRS, Scholo and Strat) with a mix of blues and greens: which is quite reasonable.

      People didn't need to know the instances because -in complete contrast to today- people were willing to talk to each and, shock! horror! explain any upcoming tricky fights.

      These days -and repeating your initial point- you are expected to be over-geared and to be have studied every patrol and boss fight.

      This has become a necessity because Blizzard has made too many of the bread and butter instance boss fights overly complicated.

      This is Blizzard's fault. Blaming the players (customers, rats in the maze) makes no sense.

      I do agree with your implied final point though: gear is far too important compared to your character's base stats and skills. Vanilla WoW had it right, we've seen extreme item inflation ever since.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    3. Re:Your premise is faulty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay, a casual vs elitist argument outside of the official forums!

      *takes off gloves*

      What ruined wow was indeed the players, but it's not the "elitists", but the so called "casuals" who got Bliz to shape the system to be what it is.

      In the old days, the elites stayed with other elites (they have little/no reason to do old content). What changed was Bliz, influenced by casuals, changed the system so that it's lucrative for the elites to show up in old content (doing old content means points which can go towards gear)

      And take off the rose tinted goggles. In the beginning elitism existed too. Gear disparity was even larger before (for one thing, there wasn't even "heroic" 5 man gear). The real difference is that "elitists" stayed within their close knit circles (because there's no incentive to do old content - there were no points), so the "casuals" rarely ever interacted with them

    4. Re:Your premise is faulty. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Ulduar was beatable with no epic gear.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    5. Re:Your premise is faulty. by errandum · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. Every dungeon is beatable by people that just turned 80 (in blue/green gear). In that kind of gear you will have a challenge is quite a few of the new raids. But then, after 10 or so runs you get way better gear and you're able to run through content (and kick people that isn't as well geared as you).

      Gear should make you better, but wow makes the difference between the different tiers way too big, so in the end you'll steamroll pretty much everything.

      In UBRS you needed tactics because even the gear you got from those dungeons wouldn't make them trivial (at least until MC or even BWL appeared). The gear you get from the dungeons and first tier heroics is enough to overgear everything that isn't a raid

    6. Re:Your premise is faulty. by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the power difference between tiers of gear is OK, but what needs tuning is the way the random dungeon grouping handles people with different levels of gear.

      For example, right now it is perfectly possible for DPS in mostly 378 gear to be put into a dungon with a tank that has gear barely meeting the level requirements of the dungeon. This leads to a situation where the tank is being screamed at to GO GO GO and they aren't learning anything other than that well geared players are often dicks.

      What should happen is groups should be formed based on the gear level of all members. If everyone has roughly similar gear levels in a group it's much more likely everyone will get along - if everyone has ridiculously great gear they will just blast through, no fuss, no muss. If everyone is in fresh 85 quest greens and blues the tank will be under less pressure to pull everything, the healers will be cut some slack, and the dps will hopefully be willing to use their aggro dumps and CC when they can.

      The problem isn't the power differential with the gear, it's that geared people want to run with geared people usually so they can go fast, while undergeared people want to learn and run with people who are patient.

      The other issue that comes up is that there is a HUGE gulf between people who run with PUGs and people who are in decent guilds.

      In my guild, people are incredibly patient with people who are learning their role and class and gearing up. When someone gets a healer or tank to 85, we form groups specifically to go through each of the dungeons to explain the fights and what each role ought to be focusing on at that point. DPS is usually a bit different - the class leader for that class will spend an hour or so helping new DPS figure out a solid rotation, go over their extra abilities (CC, interrupts, decurses, etc). When I hit 85 on my paladin, I got several crafted items given to me and they quickly helped me get up to speed for heroics and troll dungeons prior to raiding.

      With pugs, though, you essentially have people screaming at everyone for any mistake (real or imagined), hurling abuse for no reason other than to do it, and constantly insisting that everyone just GO GO GO despite not everyone knowing what they're supposed to do of knowing about gimmicks in the fights. Plus you have people abusing the system - if they're a hybrid class that can tank, even if they aren't geared or spec to tank, they will sign in as a tank just to get a faster queue. It's just totally toxic.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    7. Re:Your premise is faulty. by keytoe · · Score: 1

      What should happen is groups should be formed based on the gear level of all members. If everyone has roughly similar gear levels in a group it's much more likely everyone will get along - if everyone has ridiculously great gear they will just blast through, no fuss, no muss. If everyone is in fresh 85 quest greens and blues the tank will be under less pressure to pull everything, the healers will be cut some slack, and the dps will hopefully be willing to use their aggro dumps and CC when they can.

      This is actually how it works - but it is tempered with how long you have been waiting in the queue. If they kept this rule strict, everyone's queue times would go up since you've basically split the pool of available players into several ilvl based groups. There are several weighting strategies (ranged/melee, armor type, how many times you've done a particular dungeon, etc) that happen in the matchmaking system, and ilvl is certainly one of them. It's just that their 'value' decays the longer you are forced to wait.

      With pugs, though, you essentially have people screaming at everyone for any mistake (real or imagined), hurling abuse for no reason other than to do it, and constantly insisting that everyone just GO GO GO despite not everyone knowing what they're supposed to do of knowing about gimmicks in the fights.

      I hear this frequently on the forums, but I have never experienced it to the degree claimed. I only run PuGs via the dungeon finder. Are there jerks and idiots and do you sometimes get them in your groups? Sure. But the vast majority of the dungeons I run are smooth and painless - and when someone clearly doesn't understand a fight they respond quite well to helpful tips. I also know how to spell, use correct grammar, am courteous and try to be sociable and encouraging during the run.

    8. Re:Your premise is faulty. by errandum · · Score: 1

      two problems with your approach:

      First, it already tries to group you with gear in mind. When everyone is missing tanks though, it then allows a few undergeared tanks to slip through so that the queue times don't become ridiculous.

      And second, the problem I was addressing is exactly that no one should be able to "blast through" a dungeon. Gear nowadays makes everyone too strong, so they can, but on the 10th unchallenging dungeon run they quit for the day, or the week, or even forever. You need to challenge your players to get them to commit to your game, and you can't expect raids 2 times per week to do that. If gear wasn't the great differentiator, everyone would need to be on their heels in dungeon runs...

      But then you say "if gear doesn't improve your character, no one will run dungeons". This is simple... Just make dungeon gear strong at pvp or at specific raid fights (Abilities that can only be countered if someone has equipment A, or bosses that will be weaker if a certain item is present). This would also impose artificial blocks to avoid content being mastered in two or 3 weeks.

    9. Re:Your premise is faulty. by ildon · · Score: 1

      I don't think you've tried raiding recently... With the lobster bucket and flask cauldrons, combined with the gold earned from "guild challenges" and selling BoE raid drops on the auction house, no raid with moderate progression should ever have to farm mats (assuming someone else is actually posting them on the auction house). The raid bank should be able to afford nearly all of the guild's flask/food buffs, and probably even potion buffs if people are conservative with them (only using them on progression content or DPS race fights).

    10. Re:Your premise is faulty. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Even when I was in WoW in the early days (just before BC) it often felt this way. And I wasn't even in end game. At middle levels players were too afraid to take risks lest an instance run not succeed the first time despite the near lack of penalty for failure. The game was clearly treated as a job to some of these players. The PVP tiering by level I think encouraged this, so that competitive players felt compelled to get the best gear while they were still level 19/29/39, etc. I have seen this drive away some newcomers and encourage others to never group with others.

    11. Re:Your premise is faulty. by errandum · · Score: 1

      Before MC there was no chance to be THAT elitist. Blue gear was actually EPIC and not THAT better than the rest. Elitism existed because you were good, UBRS gear would give you an edge, but you weren't out of everybody else's league.

    12. Re:Your premise is faulty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every dungeon is beatable by people that just turned 80 (in blue/green gear).

      Wha? The current cap is 85. You can't even enter some of the dungeons at 80. If you're referring to new level 80 players going into Wrath dungeons in Cataclysm blue/green gear then you're really gaming the system.

      Compare this heroic 10 man ICC mace to this random world drop Cataclysm mace. Notice the difference? One is from running 10 man heroic ICC which is not feasibly doable by a fresh 80 and the other is conveniently available on your auction house! Oh and the one from the AH is still better!

  24. People still play WoW??? by nullCRC · · Score: 0

    Interesting.

    --
    Vescere bracis meis.
  25. Market value? by yoyhed · · Score: 2

    I don't play WoW, but I was pretty big into Guild Wars back in the day, particularly the in-game economy. Won't the in-game market value of this pet plummet once everyone's buying it to change it into gold and flooding the auction house with it? Seems like something that'll only be worth it (that is, worth it to someone who would pay for in-game items in the first place) for a short while.

    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    1. Re:Market value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard doesn't care what the in-game market value is, just that all those people bought it in that short time period. Whether you sell it or use it doesn't affect them one bit.

    2. Re:Market value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but then they can just introduce another bind-on-equip/use item that sells for gold. In my experience, not enough people are going to buy it such that it'll instantly become worthless. Then again, I don't know how economies on the largest of servers work, but I would imagine that it's not going to be purchased that quickly.

      Only the rarest of companions tend to sell for over 1.5kg, which really is not much these days. That's like, income from a day of glyph selling, which is a mostly-automated process anyway.

    3. Re:Market value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I strongly doubt the price will "plummet", though ofc. it'll probably fluctuate a fair bit before settling on some fairly high level.
      Unlike other items being sold on AH, there's a limit how far people will be willing to undercut. If I picked up a rare epic world-drop, I'll probably rush straight to AH and undercut the lowest price just to get some gold in a hurry, and with a certain trust that the current prices are fairly accurate. However, if I'm going to spend real cash on an item with the sole intend of converting it to gold, I'm gonna have certain expectations as to how much gold it's gonna bring me.

    4. Re:Market value? by KiahZero · · Score: 1

      And yet, if those expectations are higher than the function of supply of the item and demand for it, you'll either be stuck without your $10 and nothing to show for it, or you'll adjust your expectations downward to realize some gain.

      I imagine you'll see the same kind of sinusoidal price movements for this as you see for other WoW items, with high prices inducing more people to get one and list it on the AH, quickly overwhelming the demand and tanking the price.

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
    5. Re:Market value? by tycoex · · Score: 1

      I played Atlantica (among other f2p games) which basically had exactly what WoW is adding now, although the game was f2p so it was at least somewhat excusable, I can't believe they have the balls to do this for a p2p game.

      Basically what happens is the item will be worth a ton when it first comes out. It won't tank quickly, but it will gradually become worth less and less as the new "shininess" factor wears off.

      Then Blizzard will replace the item with a new "more shiny" item. The current shiny item will drop significantly, and the new item will be worth a ton. If Blizzard chooses to discontinue sales of shiny item 1 when shiny item 2 is released, shiny item 1 will increase in price in a week or so, before going back down to average levels. If they keep selling all the shiny items at once the older ones will continue to slowly decline until they reach a fairly low price that will end up as the "Standard" price for any non-new item-mall item.

    6. Re:Market value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. This only worked in EVE because the item being purchased was something needed by everyone (e.g. You'd be buying 1 months worth of subscription). This commodity (play time) had a mandated consumption rate (1 plex a month), and therefore demand will always be there. In addition, extra demand for the item was created by the fact that the item was a prerequisite to all game play (you can't play without paying, therefore if plex is ever cheaper than the monthly fee, players will use plex more, which will drive the price of plex back up). This model works quite well, but only if you don't have a extremely broken economy (such as WoW). In order to keep the entire game viable, you have to insure that the freeloaders (those who use in-game money to pay for playtime), are few and far between. From everything I've seen of WoW, gold is just way too easy to come by.

    7. Re:Market value? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      In order to keep the entire game viable, you have to insure that the freeloaders (those who use in-game money to pay for playtime), are few and far between. From everything I've seen of WoW, gold is just way too easy to come by.

      This is incorrect. Nobody is paying for game time with in-game money, the game time is always purchased with real money but may be transferred to a third party to apply to their account. That may be a gift, tax, sale, whatever, but someone paid cash for that 30 days game time it's jut not necessarily the person who actually uses it.

    8. Re:Market value? by ildon · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why Blizzard thinks it's "ok". It's regulated by the in-game market and so it has a cap on value and works properly within the system. Normal gold buying is disruptive because it works outside the market and encourages people to play in an abnormal way (even ignoring all the scamming and account stealing it generates).

      I don't necessarily agree with them, but that's likely Blizzard's logic. And if it stops a couple people from buying gold from third parties, that's to their benefit, too.

    9. Re:Market value? by thatbloke83 · · Score: 1

      In precisely the same way that PLEX work in EVE Online (see http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/30_days_Concord_Pilot_License_Extension), this item will eventually stabilise at a certain price on every realm, based on the in-game market. That price point will be zero, however.

      The problem is that in EVE, you need a new one every 30 days to keep your game time topped up, meaning that there is a constant stream of supply and demand.

      In WoW, this is a one-use item - once you "use" it, it becomes bound to your character and from then on getting another one will have precisely no use/meaning at all, unless you want to give it to an alt character, so eventually the market will become saturated and they will lose their in-game value, and the RMT will just return. I suspect this will be an experiment of sorts by Blizzard, and that depending on how this one does they may well come up with a set of, say, 10 of these items.

    10. Re:Market value? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Correct, however, nothing is preventing Blizzard from increasing the number of available items that can be traded once the market for the Guardian Cub is saturated (easily determined by their sales figures for the pet).

      Blizzard is going very slowly to test the backlash from the community, so they're starting with one item. Worst case scenario, there's only ever going to be this one pet that can be bought and traded in this way. Minimum possible impact. Blizzard is just playing it safe.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    11. Re:Market value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will affect the exchange value of in-game gold for real money from gold farmers; basically a player can look at a $25 mount, decide if he wants to buy that and see if he can get, say, 10,000 gold for it on the auction house rather than pay $49.95 (or whatever gold costs these days) for that same 10,000 G from a gold farmer.

      But yeah, it'll work fine until one day hundreds of loons with too much money to burn or kids with unrestricted access to their parent's credit cards have flooded the AHs with purchased mounts for sale and no one wants to buy them anymore. Then the gold farmers will be back in business, I imagine.

  26. Money Laundering and Black Market Proxies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real money you say? Nation states might have some interest. :-)

  27. WoW gone soft... by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

    I'll admit that I have played this game since inception, in 2004. That being said, there were dungeons that were damn near impossible to complete, without 40 able minded players. That was a stretch, and it felt like a real accomplishment. That's because it was an accomplishment... it took hard work, and often times took great critical thinking.

    The game today has become a cash cow for Blizzard, and their policies show that. From faction changes, to PvE/PvP trasfers, to 10/25 man steamroll dungeons, to now monetizing (and cashing in on) something they deemed a violation of the ToS... a week prior.
    They have taken the hard work, and dedication required, and replaced it with money bought goods.

    This is an honest question here, but are they creating a type of stock exchange in WoW?

    --
    Something witty.
    1. Re:WoW gone soft... by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Pre-nerf AQ40 and pre-nerf Kharazan come to mind.

      WoW has become a MMO Slot Machine. Pull the handle and gear comes out.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    2. Re:WoW gone soft... by HBI · · Score: 1

      Once you break the balance on a game, it never can recover.

      I used to respond to unreasonable MUD feature requests with something along the lines of - "Ok, instead of x, let's put a big regenerating pile of gold in the starting room, and a lever to give you experience. Then you take the gold and pull the lever as much as you want. Fun, right?"

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:WoW gone soft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an honest question here, but are they creating a type of stock exchange in WoW?

      Define "type of stock exchange". The AH has been there forever, which is used by some to exchange goods at variable prices. I know you know this if you've been in WoW since the beginning, but I really don't see how you can pose this as an honest question, unless you're asking about theoretical future-features that may or may not eventually be thought out by the development team, or may or may not be described in rough details on some piece of paper in the back of a developers desk drawer.

      There's no legit means of turning gold into money, and nothing has been officially stated to suggest there ever will be. Unless you consider the features of D3 likely to seep into WoW in the foreseeable future.

    4. Re:WoW gone soft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SeeSpotRun, please link your h-rag kill. oh yeah, you haven't done it. did you even do any heroics pre-nerf? since ICC the top raiding guilds like paragon say that the new tier is more difficult in terms of mechanics and complexity than the previous tier.

  28. This is like legalizing marijuana by geekzealot1982 · · Score: 1

    There is always going to be gold buying and selling in WoW. On most servers you can easily buy game time cards codes for gold which people buy in the real world for real money. So it is easy to say that this is another example of Bliz caving, but it is just acknowledging the reality of the situation, and giving players a legal way to do it that isn't illicit, much like legalizing marijuana - it is going to happen no matter what stance they take, it causes dubious hurt, and it might just as well be legal to some reasonable degree.

  29. Eve system by asciiRider · · Score: 1

    When people mention how this is implemented in Eve (my game) - they often forget to mention that it allows the isk grinders to play for free. So - for two players, CCP gets both subscriptions, one player gets to 'pay with isk to play' and one player essentially pays for two subs. Everybody is happy.

    I work hard I'm not going to work in-game. I'm most certainly not going to try and compete with unemployed guys who play 18 hours a day. If I can help them by paying for their game time in return for their in game money I think it's a fair deal.

  30. If you actually play wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a little more analysis on the wow insider piece from yesterday.

  31. Real World Trades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be clear. There is no regulation or law forbidding you buying anything by using a 3rd party in the real world. The only restriction is the contract you may have with the game provider, restricting what you can buy and from whom. But there is no restriction beyond that.

    Many will have you belive it's illegal, or piracy, or something like that. But don't be fooled by their use of buzz words. It is nothing more than their attempt to control the potential market. It is true for WOW, EVE Online and others.

  32. wow is dead!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow is a different game now anyway. Its more like watching a movie unfold then playing game.. some of the major quest boss's you can literally stop pressing buttons and just watch the npc beat the boss for you. Wow vanilla was great, burning crusade was still decent.. after that.. they made the game too simple so now a 3 year old play. the game has been dumbed down to the extreme. sad. I used to love wow..ask about 3 years of my life..lol

    1. Re:wow is dead!! by neminem · · Score: 1

      Uh... I'm pretty sure there were occasional quests like that (where they provided you an NPC, who could do the quest while you watched, just slower) in vanilla and BC, too. And better that and an NPC who you had to protect or lose the quest, who had no hp and would always run off and aggro everything no matter what you did... vanilla just freaking -loved- those.

      Anyway, everyone knows the leveling to the level cap process is just a lengthy tutorial for the actual game (namely, raiding). Wasn't that just as true in vanilla and BC? And, as someone who has never been in a guild capable of fielding 25 people to raid, I quite liked their "simplifications" :p. (Though I will admit, I was less than impressed with the first tier in Cataclysm. I think everyone was. Firelands is pretty cool, though.)

  33. Good God by Godai · · Score: 1

    They didn't do this to 'add an avenue for real money gold buying'. They don't need to -- that already exists, as they've pointed out in several posts. TCG rewards are Bind-on-Equip already, and sold on the auction house for significant money. Its not that hard to buy or obtain one of those and sell it in game for solid gold returns.

    Personally, I'm not a fan of this because I think for $10 it should show up on every character for the account its applied to. This way you're paying $10 for a one-time pet, and that seems vastly over-priced. I could care less that you can buy it on the auction-house. The idea that this will be some easy way to convert real life money to gold is stupid. You can't predict what price you'll get so you may end up getting a really lousy return on your $10 investment. Or you might make a fair bit. Who knows? Either way, its a fair way from converting money into gold efficiently. This is a classic example of making a mountain out of a molehill.

    --
    Wood Shavings!
    - Godai
  34. Overreaction by wembley+fraggle · · Score: 1

    This isn't really a legal avenue for *gold buying*. Instead it's an avenue for purchasing a vanity pet that you can sell to other players for in-game gold. The difference is two-fold:

    1) No gold is added to the economy in this transaction, which means this process doesn't add inflationary pressure.
    2) There's no guarantee of value on the pet. These things are going to flood the marketplace, as people buy them for resale. Who knows what the final market value of these things will be?

    Blizzard could have just instituted some kind of $1 = 1,000 gold transfer, but they didn't. This will be at best a minimal gold buying avenue (I don't predict the value of these pets to be all that high in the long term.

    On the other hand, the bigger deal is what the article missed- with all the previous vanity pets, $10 got you a pet that you could use on all your characters (Bind to Account). This new (Bind on Equip) pet means that you have to pick the character that gets the pet. That is somewhat disappointing, as I have a fair number of alts that I could conceivably give this pet, but I'm not going to spend $50 doing so.

  35. Reality, this really isn't a big deal by v_Los · · Score: 1

    It's funny to see how many different tangents people get on when the issue of WoW comes up. It should be pointed out that none of the items Blizzards sells in it's store has any effect on gameplay. Sure, you can take issue with the game itself all you want. You could also point out the fact that it's losing users, but it's a decade old game. I would be concerned if it were still growing at this point. Nobody is forcing you to buy any of it. Take issue with the game itself all you want, but the real money store is probably the last thing that is doing the game any harm. The in game markets are self policed and the value of these items will drop enough that it just won't be worth trading $10 any amount of gold.

  36. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Origin discovered is that in an unlimited space world you get weird goddamn behaviour from people. I remember them citing examples like one dude who stockpiled a 100,000 shirts in his bank. People are strange!

    If database storage space is not an issue, then wtf does it matter what people do with their bank space?

    A game that WANTS people to collect lots and lots of pointless items, quest items, tiered armor, crafting mats, etc SHOULD provide a means to store it all and encourage them to collect as much as possible. Forcing me to throw things away goes against their profit potential because now I don't want to collect everything I possibly can. The entire point of playing addictive collecting games is to collect!

    For me, certain items have sentimental value and I will not throw them away because it would be throwing away a memory. One that is refreshed whenever I peruse my bank, reliving all the memories stored in there.

  37. The only issue is precedent by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 1

    Suckers are going to spend $25 on a mount that will flood the AH. What costs 20K gold on Saturday will be 2K gold the following week. If you don't already have 2K gold on your toon, then you're doing it wrong. What worries me is Blizz moving this model over to gear. When that happens, I am out.

  38. Should have played Everquest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who really loves MMORPGs would have played Everquest 1 or 2. Wow is for children who want to just KILL THE FUCK!. None of them *really* know how to raid. Bring on Everquest Next.

  39. WoW improvements by jwiegley · · Score: 1

    Scale instances to the gear level. There is too much content already. I've been playing for three years and haven't seen half the raids. From WotLK I have completed Naxx and NONE of the other raids. My guild was too small to tackle content regularly. My guildies were great, helpful people who were excellent people. What? "find another guild" you say? Are you seriously indicating that something that is a *game* should motivate and encourage affiliation based on performance and not on friendship? I'd be happy to go back and spend time in older raids if they were challenging. Put together a group, figure out the average iLevel and then scale the damage and healing for the instances. Bam. All content becomes fresh.

    Allow raid compositions of more/less than 10/25 players (and scale the instance). "One raid member can't make it tonight?" you're fucked. "Oh, you have one too many" Too bad, benched.

    Allow players to create instances and content. If it is about providing enough challenging content to keep players interested (and it should be... I can't take another random Zul) then Blizzard needs to get over its love of canon/lore and simply release tools that allow players to create their own instances. Yeah, the story lines won't remain consistent but so what. Limit what can drop in the player instances and have a system for obtaining Blizzards approval. Then you would have more content, faster than any player could keep up with.

    Get rid of the dependence on guild membership to tackle content. World of Warcraft is clearly designed by individuals with a juvenile high school mentality. guilds are just popularity cliques.You want to raid? You must have a guild to be successful in end-game content (which EVERYONE pays for but few people get to see in a timely fashion). If your guild falls apart, or is great people but too small, or you can't make the 80% attendance requirement, or your employment schedule shifts and takes you out of your scheduled night... you're screwed. no raiding for you unless you find a new guild. Make changes that de-emphsize guild membership as a requirement for experiencing game content. Provide power to the individual to choose content.

    Forget about the damn chinese/gold/gear farmers. Drop the whole idea of raid locks. This is put in to prevent people from farming content and becoming geared "too quickly", whatever that means. SO FUCKING WHAT? I don't care if somebody else is getting a free ride. How does their success diminish my ability to play? Why punish me so that I can't honestly grind gear at my pace? If they're geared but they can't play I'll just avoid them. There's no rational reason concerning game play for lockouts. Yes. it prevents guilds/groups from farming gear for new players. But So what? Again another punishment for honest players. It could also be implemented better. Progression can be controlled through iLevel limits for instance entrances and also through content dependencies instead.

    World of Walkcraft. Get rid of the damn corpse runs. No reason for them. At the very least when you die just cause the respawn at the instance entrance. Waiting/walking is not "fun". Nobody loves those zones were the graeyards are super far away. That run back really lets you relax and get in touch with yourself. Helps you contemplate your mistake and improve too.

    Remove all the penalties for dying. Yes. I get the durability penalty. that makes sense as providing a major, reliable and continuous gold sink to maintain the stability of the economies. But rez sickness is stupid. more stupid is the "oh, you died again quickly? PENALTY BOX!" The disappointment of dying is enough of a punishment. Dying frequently is its own punishment. The time lost to rebuff, wait for mana, instant boss/mob reset is enough. Waiting for 2 minutes after Bloodlord Mandokir kills you is just stupid.

    Random Raid Finder. Yes. I know this is coming but it's coming wrong. It will only allow grouping for lower level raids and not the current tier. Why? Stupid. Just another limit enforcing

    --
    I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    1. Re:WoW improvements by Miaomiao · · Score: 1

      By the way: Raid finder is only for the current tier raid (Deathwing) not older raids, you have it backwards. Big thing is it's on an "easy" difficulty only, so you don't get the "best" gear from it. This will probably change, most people are wanting to do normal and even heroic content with raid finder raids.

      We'll probably see raid locks go away eventually, there's a hardcore mentality that things have to stay "hard" in terms of needing lots of time invested, instead of "hard" as a form of challenge. They serve an important purpose allowing people to take more time to finish raids, which tend to be giant instances taking hours and hours of time. If it takes you 6 hours to kill all the bosses, having your time investment go away after you leave is bad. Most guilds spread these across 2~3 days in smaller chunks. Many guilds even invest just an hour a night in raiding, making it their main focus.

      As far as rez sickness, as well as the waiting time, they're an integral part of world pvp. Without them you end up in situations where new players are camped for hours on end.

  40. Gold DKP probably isn't going to be affected... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    It still gives an advantage to those that are willing to pay real money for game money. No new gold is created, but it does allow people to pool the existing money by buying multiples of the pet and selling them to accumulate wealth. Since gear can be bought with gold, this will give the players that are willing to spend real money an advantage over those that are not willing to or cannot afford to.

    For what it is worth, obtaining BiS gear is no longer that difficult to do, thanks to Blizz allowing BoP gear obtained in raids to be traded among raid members for up to an hour after the end of the raid. Both my 'locks (undead and human) have four pieces of Tier 11 gear, thanks to heavy and frequent abuse of this benign rule change designed to reduce the number of in-game petitions to reassign BoP gear that was mis-assigned by the lootmaster. Thanks to this rule change, it is possible to offer a shit-ton of gold for that Tier item that somebody out-diced you for, and I've rarely had somebody refuse a high five-figure offer. When the phoenix dropped for our pug 25 man two years ago, I offered 100k gold to the roll winner, who didn't even hesitate. That is the rarest drop in the game, and this guy sold it for the equivalent of 5 Titansteel cool downs. Also, look up "gold DKP" raids on any wow forum to see how pugging end-content raids is an efficient and very cheap way to get BiS gear for even toons you only leveled to get their trade skills up.

    So, yeah, having more gold helps on these gold DKP runs. But -- and this is where I think you are wrong about more gold conferring an advantage - you are ignoring the Tier sets. More gold does not confer an advantage to players because of the Tier sets. You can't buy Tier items with gold (gold DKP runs and the change to the BoP rules in raids being the exceptions, as I noted above, but which are pretty limited exceptions.) Last time I checked with elitistjerks, at least for my class ('lock) the Tier sets are still considered BiS for all our specs. You can buy some good gear for gold; outside of raid drops, you can't get a better trinket than the darkmoon card-based ones, or for clothies, the tailored pants and belt. But nothing you buy for gold confers anything beyond the base stats on the item. Tier gear, which are BoP, class specific, and can only be obtained in a raid, have cumulative bonuses on them which do confer a significant, non-trivial advantage in PvE.

  41. As a WoW player... by neminem · · Score: 1

    I have no problem with this at all. People buy gold anyway; better Blizzard gets the profits than sketchy, might-steal-your-account-later trade-channel-spammers. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I like this model way better than the previous one, where there are vanity items you can *only* buy with cash. If they did that with raid-tier gear, I'd quit, full stop, right now. If they used *this* model with raid-tier gear, on the other hand, I'd actually think it was sort of neat. (Kingdom of Loathing, my favorite game ever, basically survives on that model, though granted, it's different in that it's otherwise free to play. I give them about as much a year as I give WoW, though.)

  42. The most disappointing thing about WoW... by jayveekay · · Score: 1

    The most disappointing thing about WoW is not that Activision/Blizzard is trying to monetize what they have, it's that after 7 years WoW is still a character progression treadmill just like the MMOs that preceded it. If it was possible to break out of that model then WoW, with its revenues 10 times greater than those of blockbuster MMOs, then WoW would have done it by now.

    It's like the quest for a machine to travel back at time: If it were possible to invent one, someone in the future would have done it and brought it back to demo it.

    Or interstellar space travel: If it were possible, one of the other planets in the universe would have developed it a billion years ago and have reached Earth by now.

  43. Hmmm, money, money, money by onezeta · · Score: 1

    Yes, the WoW is now using their strong fan base to get more money. Good for them.