Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsBreakfast Topic: How far would you let WoW microtransactions go?
by Zach Yonzon 
Nov 9th 2009 at 8:00AM
At any rate, it looks like the Pet Store is here to stay. Besides, Blizzard has already been hawking in-game services for real money, so it's not as if these vanity pets are any different. I personally don't find anything wrong with these pets, and seeing the number of diminutive liches and kung fu pandas showing up all over Azeroth, it really seems like a lot of other people don't, either.
Blizzard states that these items, similar to the TCG loot cards, are "purely cosmetic and just for fun." They say that they'd be loathe to introduce things that are "detrimental to the game and (detracts) from the gameplay experience for players who choose not to use the service." So that probably means no epic weapons or anything of the sort.
How far does that go, though? Are heirloom items considered detrimental to the game? How about buying levels? Premades? I personally wouldn't mind paying a fair price to skip the painful leveling process (an attitude that might admittedly change during the Cataclysm). What's do you think is next for Blizzard? Armor dyes, perhaps? Vanity outfits such as the complete Brewfest set or gag items such as those found on the TCG? Titles? Now that the microtransactions gate has been opened, how far do you think Blizzard will go?
Filed under: Items, Blizzard, Economy, Breakfast Topics
Reader Comments (Page 7 of 7)
Ginncrotz Nov 9th 2009 3:04PM
"I want to know why they are called microtransactions?"
I would guess because a lot of "free" games have microtransactions to buy in-game things with real money. So people have latched onto "microtransaction" being "buying in-game stuff with real money" as opposed to "a really really small transaction".
Even the games that use it to mean "small transaction" have significantly shifted it from the original meaning, which was "a transaction small enough that you would pay it to view a web page, like less then a penny". That never caught on, it ran into the technical problem of charging far far less then a bank wants to handle a credit card payment for (or the technical problem of making a non-credit card system, that acts a lot like credit cards or debit cards, but can make a profit, or at least break even on transactions two or three orders of magnitude smaller then existing systems). It also ran into the problem of people not liking to feel nickeled and dimed (even if it is one tenth of a penny, not ten pennies). Then the advertising driven model started working out, and hey, who wants to pay even a fraction of a cent when you can read for FREE with a little blinking ad?
So microtransaction can either be the word for "something that didn't work in the past, and is unlikely to be dusted off and done in the future", or we can ignore the "micro" part and make it stand for larger transactions.
Personally I would like to keep "microtransaction" to "under a buck" (which isn't all that micro), but language is a hard thing to steer, and it is going to mean whatever most people think it means.
It'll still bug me though. At least amazon isn't referring to $10 kindle e-book purchases as "microtransactions". Nor is McDonnald's calling a $7 burger a "microtransaction".
Paul Nov 9th 2009 3:50PM
As long as they don't start selling gold, levels, or gear through their store, I don't mind. I'm certainly not going to spend extra money for pets....but if they sold the Amani War Bear....maybe. :P
Dementron Nov 9th 2009 3:54PM
I don't think Blizz is going to put anything in the store that affects gameplay. I don't think there will even be anything to affect achievements. If I recall correctly, there isn't even a Feat of Strength associated with the new pets.
Ash Nov 9th 2009 4:15PM
I appear to be in the vocal minority that really doesn't see an issue with them going further, I say vocal minority, because I'm pretty sure I'm in the actual majority.
Vanity Pets - Don't care, even if it counts towards achievement, you want to spend $100 on getting the achievement, go ahead, don't care it's your money
Mounts - Don't care, even if they're 310%, why because it doesn't effect me, no part of the game involves me racing another player with their store bought 310% mount, in fact it's better for me, they can leg it over to Ice Crown and summon me because they'll get there quicker, I'll chill out in Dalaran.
XP Boosts - Don't care, help people level alts through content they've already seen so the guild has more options when it comes to raiding, sounds good to me, if they want to spend money and make it quicker all the better, why should someone elses 1-80 experience effect me at all, and with group kick in the new blizz pug-u-like if they're crap because they rushed it they're gone.
Heirlooms - Don't care, please see above.
Once you hit max level everything should be earned by the player, that's gear, emblems etc. Anything before that, not fussed at all, because it doesn't effect me at all, and I don't piss and moan about the fact that X person has Y achievement I don't have, and even if I wish I did have it I couldn't actually give a damn how they got it. The important achievements are the skill achievements (hardmode Ulduar etc) not the fact you could collect 100 vanity pets..
Gold I don't like, not because in theory I have an issue with it, but because inflation would go through the roof and you would have to buy gold to compete, but anything that eases 1>>Max level go for it. Why? Because how someone else goes from 1>>Max level doesn't effect you AT ALL.
Ash
Alexis Nov 9th 2009 4:48PM
I love the RAF xp bonus (and ability to gift levels!) and it makes it way easier for me to level my main, who is now level 52. It only lasts up to level 60 so I do have to go back to normal from 60-80, and since I have to play with my boyfriend it makes me learn the class and how to group anyways (I've learnt so much about healing as a shaman just from running around with him!)
And yes, we take full advantage of all the bonuses, including the ability to gift levels to his alts. He hates leveling druids but wants to play his druid at higher levels, so i've gifted his druid from 30 to 52. But it's worth it to Blizzard to let him easy level up characters to play with me so they can get my money by having me subscribe.
I wouldn't but the pets for RL money, partially because I have a friend who plays WoW who collects pet and is really good at aquiring gold and has supplied me with more pets than I could ever use (lots of cats, snakes, birds, dragon, etc) and my boyfriend gifted me my favorite one, a little baby raptor. Also because I can't really afford it.
But I think it would be quite insulting to people who put in time and effort raiding and such to get loot and gear upgrades if people could just buy sweet swords and get all the best gear with no real effort.
Dreyja Nov 9th 2009 5:03PM
For me, the line you can't cross is whatever effects "gameplay," meaning, it doesn't make a player more powerful.
My pandaren pet doesn't kill peole for me - doent's help me kill people, neither does it help me gather or in anyway earn gold in the game. I'm sure Blizzard is never going to cross that line. Vanity stuff - fair game.
pwherman Nov 9th 2009 7:31PM
Oh, and here's the article I mentioned in my earlier post:
Massively's | Redefining MMOs: The massive money of microtransactions
http://www.massively.com/2009/09/11/redefining-mmos-the-massive-money-of-microtransactions/
neminem Nov 9th 2009 9:18PM
As far as I'm concerned: anything that is useless except to look cool, I don't mind a whit if they sell it for cash. Furthermore, anything that is useful but reasonably-easily obtainable in-game, and which doesn't stack with those, that wouldn't bother me too badly. So, for instance: buying levels, terrible, terrible idea. Heirlooms that give +xp in slots that you can only get +xp in that way? Terrible idea. Heirlooms with +xp in the same slots heirlooms already exist for? Fine, badges are cheap. Top-tier purples? Terrible idea. Ilvl 200 gear? Go ahead, those badges are still cheap. Basic flying mount that looks cool? Fine. 310% mount? less fine. And so on.
For what it's worth, if come Cataclysm Blizzard sold us BoA gear that at level-cap was equivalent to your basic, get-them-from-5mans purples, not only wouldn't I get pissed, I'd probably buy a few. You'd still replace them quickly with raid gear, but it'd mean less time spent not-raiding on alts before you could bring them to raids.