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."

21 of 197 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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?
    8. 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.

  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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).