Skip to Content
11-30-2010 @ 8:03AM
11-30-2010 @ 9:38AM
The wealth of characters in-game shouldn't reflect the wealth of the player out-of-game.
11-30-2010 @ 9:53AM
I don’t think a 10 dollar vanity pet is proof of any kind of "wealth" outside of the game. And if 10 bucks is the difference between you entering the poor house then maybe you should cancel your monthly subscription fee. That being said, I hate these vanity pets/mounts and the idea behind them.
I was going to buy a moonkin but then they didn't give us an anniversary pet so I was like "screw that", if Blizzard doesn't give a crap about me, they don't deserve that money.
12-02-2010 @ 12:32PM
@No Quarter ...just your monthly fee, right?
11-30-2010 @ 11:04AM
The wealth of characters in-game is always reflected the wealth outside of the game, depending on how you define wealth. Those with the greatest wealth of time have the greatest wealth in-game.I don't see non-combat pets as a source of wealth, so I can't support your comment. They're just something fun. Why does everyone get so bent out of shape about them?Lots of nerdrage in the comments today.
11-30-2010 @ 11:24AM
Buying in-game pets with real money is not fun. I earn enough money in real life that I could afford the pets, but isn't in-game property given value when it is a reflection of gaming talent, teamwork, commitment, time invested, or just flat-out luck rather than the ability to open your wallet? What do you think when you see another gamer in Stormwind or Orgrimmar showing off their Lil' XT versus someone with a Phoenix Hatchling?There was a time when you paid for the game and its subscription and PLAYED for any and all in-game rewards. It's not about the absolute dollar value: How valuable would the Frostbrood mount be if you bought it with Washingtons instead of teamwork and commitment? Or a Mammoth bought with Lincolns instead of Gold?Buying in-game property with real dollars is very, very close to buying gold: It just happens to already be allocated to a specific in-game purchase. It's an ethical tightrope with which I have never been comfortable, for charity or not, and I wish Blizzard would back away from the practice.
11-30-2010 @ 11:39AM
I do believe people have the right to buy something if they choose despite all the negative fecal flinging by the con side. It boils down to if you can and want to then that is all good and well. There should be no moral implications about the similarities to buying gold or reflection of wealth when you have your power to say no by keeping your wallets closed. Whenever a new item is offered by Blizz in their store in this way, the community becomes some twisted Trade Chat, spitting on someone just because they wanted something. I think Blizz does enough for us free that they should be entitled to sell things for profit. They are a for profit company. Yes, I purchased both pets because I wanted to, and was able to. Thats my bottom line.
11-30-2010 @ 11:48AM
@JosinGotta agree... Blizzards not putting a gun to anyones head and *forcing* them to buy minipets. All this hate probably stems from people who spend (too much) time in game acquiring things, then get bent out of shape when someone else can just buy cool stuff. Here's an idea, lets all stop being d*cks to each other and focus on something positive. Like the fact that our favorite game is thriving, or that moonkin sales help a charity.
11-30-2010 @ 1:10PM
@DraevThe reason there is opposition to these purchasable pets is because they affect the game for EVERYONE who plays. Not only the people who chose to buy them. There are valid arguments on the con side. It's not just "negative fecal flinging" as you say. Also, I'd like to add that the people at Blizzard are very smart. Many of you help justify your purchase with the fact that Blizzard is donating money to charity. They know that they will sell more if they can convince the people who might be undecided about purchasing with the enticement of doing a good deed by giving to charity. Although you can give 5 bucks to Make-A-Wish anytime you want. You don’t need Blizzard to do it for you.
11-30-2010 @ 5:40PM
I might. Baby Moonkin seems cute.I'm not doing it because it goes to charity or whatever. I can see through it, and I know that this is just a cash grab, but I'd much rather them earn extra cash on the game through stuff like this rather than breaking down and going full-on microtransaction like other games are.
11-30-2010 @ 2:22PM
Yes .... already !!!
11-30-2010 @ 3:08PM
Yep, wealth from the legacy world always influences its virtual extensions.Ask who has the best framerates during a raid? Who is able to keep their subscription current even if they only have time to play once or twice a month? Who has the best net connection? Quickly replaced hard drive after a crash? Etc. And those are just the *direct* connections.
11-30-2010 @ 8:44PM
@matiaid1Most epic post ever! I was looking into your comment when I realized there was so much more to it then it seems.Notice the word chosen was 'nope' and not 'no'. It was obviously an intentional anagram for 'open'- clearly indicating that you are not 'open' to the concept of spending 10$ real cash for a vanity pet.I also noticed that both 'nope' and 'open' are an anagram for 'peon'- as in, mindless followers. In addition to your resounding decision against real money vanity pets, you've also embedded a stinging indictment of those who'd purchase them.You chose not to use an upper case letter 'N', making the post seems more casual, shrouding your true intent in the casual style of internet speak. This subtle yet powerful technique will stymie all but the most paranoid of code-breakers.Finally, you ended with a period, that both hinted at the subtle error of the lower case 'n' and implied a finality to your statement. By concluding with a period, you give your statement the weight of a court ruling. The question lies before us. The verdict is in. The cryptic answer is 'nope.'Bloody brilliant.
12-01-2010 @ 1:23AM
me neither.I probably would if the mount wasn't so god damn ugly.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.