128 réponses à ce sujet

[Panderfringe]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I like how, on the internet, anything you don't agree with is automatically wrong, bad, or unethical, and that anyone who buys a product you don't like is automatically an unintelligent sheep or is being taken advantage of.

I know, right! I think Bioware should from now on confer with the community at large to ensure their downlaodable products are not "lame" or "stupid" or "unfair." Perhaps you could give everything to these entitled children, for free.

Oh, just so we're clear, the above was entirely facetious.

Modifié par Panderfringe, 20 avril 2010 - 09:17 .

[AshedMan]

Maybe I'm just old-school, but MMO's are a world separate from reality. It's a place where my personal socio-economic status should have no impact. Everyone is on an even playing field. My character is what I make it by using the in-game mechanics.

I strongly oppose MMO's that allow people to gain benefits within the game world simply by throwing more of their money at it. The scales are no longer balanced for all players. I understand the allure of it from a business standpoint, but it goes directly against my principles as an MMO gamer.

I really hope SW:TOR doesn't have similar features. 

Modifié par AshedMan, 20 avril 2010 - 09:17 .

[Vahe]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I like how, on the internet, anything you don't agree with is automatically wrong, bad, or unethical, and that anyone who buys a product you don't like is automatically an unintelligent sheep or is being taken advantage of.

Don't you think you're a bit biased when it comes to something like this, working in the video game industry and all?

[Panderfringe]

Vahe wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I like how, on the internet, anything you don't agree with is automatically wrong, bad, or unethical, and that anyone who buys a product you don't like is automatically an unintelligent sheep or is being taken advantage of.

Don't you think you're a bit biased when it comes to something like this, working in the video game industry and all?

Except he's perfectly correct. This is neither unethical conduct nor is it particularly indicative of anything of the consumer. Blizzard did not force anybody to purchase the item, there is literally no detrimental aspect to it. The price of the product was not hidden from the consumer, who evidently thought it was just fine.

If the consumer is willing to pay $25 for a product, and the maker of said product neither forced nor tricked the consumer into purchasing it, then what is the god damn problem?

[Appolo90]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I like how, on the internet, anything you don't agree with is automatically wrong, bad, or unethical, and that anyone who buys a product you don't like is automatically an unintelligent sheep or is being taken advantage of.

Hey, guys.. I'm quoting Stanley Woo! Stanley frikkn' Woo!

I feel so cool :]

[cynicalsaint1]

Next month, they'll offer up a new set of armor for the horse for the low, low price $15.

[Fizzeler]

AshedMan wrote...

Maybe I'm just old-school, but MMO's are a world separate from reality. It's a place where my personal socio-economic status should have no impact. Everyone is on an even playing field. My character is what I make it by using the in-game mechanics.

I strongly oppose MMO's that allow people to gain benefits within the game world simply by throwing more of their money at it. The scales are no longer balanced for all players. I understand the allure of it from a business standpoint, but it goes directly against my principles as an MMO gamer.

I really hope SW:TOR doesn't have similar features. 

I agree you pay the monthly fee so you can excel your character through your hardwork and then try your luck at the auction house and see if you can make gold off of the fictional economy

As odd as I think this is from Blizzard's point of view this is a huge success that they were able to profit off of OPTIONAL DLC like this. As a consumer I would hesistate a bit and not buy it because to me it does not seem worth it, but to these people it does.

[Anexity]

cynicalsaint1 wrote...

Next month, they'll offer up a new set of armor for the horse for the low, low price $15.

This is the company (meaning Activision Blizzard, not just the Blizzard division) that said outright they want to keep increasing video games prices. DLC is just another way to make you pay more for less.

Modifié par Anexity, 21 avril 2010 - 02:39 .

[Reptilian Rob]

BOBBY KOTICK!!!!!!! I WANT YOUR BLOOD!!!!!!!!

[Randomactss]

You ate my kitten AND LAUGHED AT ME! YOU MONSTER..



*Oh and btw I had this avatar before boom did*

[Zaxares]

I think $25 is a ludicrous price for that kind of DLC, but it's entirely optional, and since I don't play WoW it's not my place to judge how somebody who loves that game wants to spend their money on it. Frankly, I could say the same thing about people who spend large sums of money on tickets to concerts, live sports matches, gourmet food etc. "It's such a waste of money. What do you get out of it?"



Answer: It's the memories. The memories and the experience. As long as people aren't hurting anybody else in pursuit of their hobby, then I say everyone should be free to collect whatever memories and experiences are most pleasing to them, in however form they might take.

[Feraele]

I'm sorry..but.."Sparkle Horse"...why oh why does that remind me of "my little pony" hehe



I played Wow a long time ago, in 2004 at release and for 3 months. After that time I decided I would rather play something else, and haven't had the slightest urge to return.



Twenty five dollars for a horse. And there are people who will pay that...hehe well..good on Activision/Blizzard, if there is a way to part people from their money...they'll find it...to be sure.

[Feraele]

Fizzeler wrote...

AshedMan wrote...

Maybe I'm just old-school, but MMO's are a world separate from reality. It's a place where my personal socio-economic status should have no impact. Everyone is on an even playing field. My character is what I make it by using the in-game mechanics.

I strongly oppose MMO's that allow people to gain benefits within the game world simply by throwing more of their money at it. The scales are no longer balanced for all players. I understand the allure of it from a business standpoint, but it goes directly against my principles as an MMO gamer.

I really hope SW:TOR doesn't have similar features. 

I agree you pay the monthly fee so you can excel your character through your hardwork and then try your luck at the auction house and see if you can make gold off of the fictional economy

As odd as I think this is from Blizzard's point of view this is a huge success that they were able to profit off of OPTIONAL DLC like this. As a consumer I would hesistate a bit and not buy it because to me it does not seem worth it, but to these people it does.

The horse sounds like a "status item" in Wow.   I think they have discovered what the so-called "free to play" Korean games do with their item malls.    In item malls are things ..that you can't get in the game at all, including certain armor, pets..etc.

I think Activision/Blizzard has taken a page from the Korean games' books...and is implementing it with great effect.    Hey...they have to make a buck here and there.    hehehe

I just want to say however..."thems just pixels...Elmer...they don't last :P"

[Gaddmeister]

Haha, wow! And I didn't want to pay $3 for the ME2 outfits. Congratulations to Blizzard for daring to go with that price and succeed. Of course they knew what they were doing all along, but still. Fantastic! Man, those MMOs seem to be real cash cows. I hope Bioware can make some good money from SWTOR.

[Bryzon]

I've been having this discussion with some friends on twitter for the past week. I will never participate in something like this. This is why I quit EQ2. If you ask for $40-$50 for the game software, $15/mo subscription, you should not be asking for more money for ingame items that cannot be gotten without real money. So if I want this horse, I have to pay $15/mo plus the $25 for the horse ontop of what I already paid for the game plus expansions. I played either EQ1 or 2 for nearly 10 years, but you can't expect someone like me to continue to cough up money for ingame items when I'm already paying a subscription. Just my opinion.

[bzombo]

Panderfringe wrote...

Vahe wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I like how, on the internet, anything you don't agree with is automatically wrong, bad, or unethical, and that anyone who buys a product you don't like is automatically an unintelligent sheep or is being taken advantage of.

Don't you think you're a bit biased when it comes to something like this, working in the video game industry and all?

Except he's perfectly correct. This is neither unethical conduct nor is it particularly indicative of anything of the consumer. Blizzard did not force anybody to purchase the item, there is literally no detrimental aspect to it. The price of the product was not hidden from the consumer, who evidently thought it was just fine.

If the consumer is willing to pay $25 for a product, and the maker of said product neither forced nor tricked the consumer into purchasing it, then what is the god damn problem?

i agree blizzard is in no way at fault. they got money from people willing to pay. i think the product offered is insane for the price and i think those that bought it are either rich or need their head examined. it's ridiculous, but more power to blizzard for making  the money. still insane, though. as i said in a previous post, if i could make money selling bags of dog crap and vomit i would do it, but there's no market. still a ridiculous thing to sell, but if money can be made......thi is capitalism at work. offer a product for a price and see if it will sell. this one did, but it's still nuts that people paid $25 for a horse.

so, should we all just sit here and constantly agree with each other until no one wants to come on here anymore because it's freakin boring? i don't think anyone has been mean, crude, or trollish either. we've been discussing the merits of the product, and we think it stinks.

[Crixt]

Bryzon wrote...

I've been having this discussion with some friends on twitter for the past week. I will never participate in something like this. This is why I quit EQ2. If you ask for $40-$50 for the game software, $15/mo subscription, you should not be asking for more money for ingame items that cannot be gotten without real money. So if I want this horse, I have to pay $15/mo plus the $25 for the horse ontop of what I already paid for the game plus expansions. I played either EQ1 or 2 for nearly 10 years, but you can't expect someone like me to continue to cough up money for ingame items when I'm already paying a subscription. Just my opinion.

Im completey fine with this because it's a purely aesthetic item.  No special use, not essential, and gives no advantage.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I like how, on the internet, anything you don't agree with is automatically wrong, bad, or unethical, and that anyone who buys a product you don't like is automatically an unintelligent sheep or is being taken advantage of.

This is just wrong and bad.  Stop being such an unintelligent sheep, ok?  I seriously question your ethics and I think you are being taken advantage of.

[Panderfringe]

bzombo wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...

Vahe wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

I like how, on the internet, anything you don't agree with is automatically wrong, bad, or unethical, and that anyone who buys a product you don't like is automatically an unintelligent sheep or is being taken advantage of.

Don't you think you're a bit biased when it comes to something like this, working in the video game industry and all?

Except he's perfectly correct. This is neither unethical conduct nor is it particularly indicative of anything of the consumer. Blizzard did not force anybody to purchase the item, there is literally no detrimental aspect to it. The price of the product was not hidden from the consumer, who evidently thought it was just fine.

If the consumer is willing to pay $25 for a product, and the maker of said product neither forced nor tricked the consumer into purchasing it, then what is the god damn problem?

i agree blizzard is in no way at fault. they got money from people willing to pay. i think the product offered is insane for the price and i think those that bought it are either rich or need their head examined. it's ridiculous, but more power to blizzard for making  the money. still insane, though. as i said in a previous post, if i could make money selling bags of dog crap and vomit i would do it, but there's no market. still a ridiculous thing to sell, but if money can be made......thi is capitalism at work. offer a product for a price and see if it will sell. this one did, but it's still nuts that people paid $25 for a horse.

so, should we all just sit here and constantly agree with each other until no one wants to come on here anymore because it's freakin boring? i don't think anyone has been mean, crude, or trollish either. we've been discussing the merits of the product, and we think it stinks.

Okay I think you need to take a step back and consider why you care. Are these people using your money to buy this? If not I do not see why you need to butt into what they choose to spend money on.

[Tirigon]

I wonder why this horse isn´t available for free yet on some pirate site. Or maybe it is and I just don´t care enough to know?

[Sloth Of Doom]

Tirigon wrote...

I wonder why this horse isn´t available for free yet on some pirate site. Or maybe it is and I just don´t care enough to know?

Because it has to be verified on Blizzard's servers?  You can't just pirate gear for an MMO (generally).

[Kohaku]

It's attached to your account. You can't even trade it because it's soul bound. Don't think I wouldn't take advantage of that if I could.

[insochris]

scyphozoa wrote...

I liken SC2 withholding multiplayer units to Modern Warfare 2 withholding multiplayer gun types.

*snip*

I haven't played SC2 at all, but I have gone out of my way to understand that multiplayer units are withheld per box - and I can't fathom how they are getting away with that, other than that SC2 fans are so eager for the game to launch that they will gladly pay any price.

and where did you get this information from? it states clearly in the official FAQ that all three races are available for multiplayer from the start.

Official Starcraft 2 FAQ

as for this horse thingy... does all the required training come included in the price? because then i can see it being worth almost 2 months of game time. i am only curious, i quit WoW two years ago and have no urge to go back to it.

Modifié par insochris, 21 avril 2010 - 04:50 .

[Kohaku]

No. I hadn't played in four years so this how it all went down.

I had the initial level 20 mount training. I brought the level 40 training for 46 gold (that's with a reputation discount). Since I'm a druid, I learned flight form and bypassed the cost of the initial flying loop. If I decide to continue going, which more than likely will not happen, you pay for another upgrade at 70 or 80 or whatever. That's another 4k gold.

So in the end you're not only paying for the Sparkle Horse with real money but also in-game money for all the training, if you aren't a druid ideally...

Modifié par Kerridan Kaiba, 21 avril 2010 - 05:08 .