Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-10-2011 @ 12:29PM
MattKrotzer said...
I don't care so much for the obvious gold-selling issues that will come from this, so much as the issue of buying it and having it only go to one character. If I'm going to spend cash on an in-game item, I want it for ALL of my characters.
Reply
10-10-2011 @ 12:35PM
Lipstick said...
My feelings more or less exactly.
10-10-2011 @ 12:37PM
Klausse said...
/agree. Making this pet the same price as the other account-wide pets is really disappointing. For me, the ability to sell this pet for in-game gold does not offset the one-time use. Either make it $5 or keep it at $10 but give some of the proceeds to charity.
10-10-2011 @ 12:40PM
Klausse said...
Better yet, if you're going to keep it at $10, give us the following option when we purchase the pet: either a) account-wide but soulbound, or b) one-time use but tradeable.
10-10-2011 @ 12:43PM
Daedalus said...
I get the feeling that the one-per-character thing is a direct result of this being gold selling lite.
If it applied to all characters, even newly rolled ones, eventually you'd have a certain amount of saturation: people who care about pets would buy it once and never again. That means the gold price of them would go down over time and they'd be less attractive to people looking to cash in.
Not saying that's a good or bad thing, but I'm fairly certain that's the reasoning behind it.
10-10-2011 @ 1:02PM
Shyster said...
I personally always thought it's some solid over the top consumerism to buy something that doesn't really exist/serve a purpose other than some shiny pixels on your screen, but it's even worse if it's less convenient for the buyer (i.e. only on one toon rather than all) but maybe that's just me. Plus the whole gold selling side to this is a bit off but I'll hold my tongue until this plays out.
10-10-2011 @ 1:39PM
Grovinofdarkhour said...
Best of both worlds: make it convert to account-bound on first use.
10-10-2011 @ 2:09PM
Skarn said...
I almost exclusively play only one character so it doesn't bother me too much, but I absolutely understand that point. I agree, it would be nice to have a "old way or new way" option on purchase.
10-10-2011 @ 2:41PM
Anteia said...
I can't up vote this sentiment enough. The gold selling part of it, whether it is or not.. I can just ignore. I've never bought gold, and I refuse to buy pets on the AH over... really, 5k unless they're one I want -really- badly. But it worries me they'll go this trend with other pets in the future too, and one thing I extolled to friends who hesitated over the fact that WoW had the online pet store was "Yeah, but they go to every character you have or will EVER have. You're not screwed out of a pet just because you decide to switch mains. So they're completely worth the 10 dollars to me." I can't USE that on this pet, and now I'm worried Blizzard will keep it up. So despite the fact I honestly actually like the pet and would have totally gotten it in the old way... I won't be buying it on the AH NOR will I be buying it from the store. For those who are uncomfortable with how they're doing it, buying it on the AH only encourages another player to go buy more and make gold. So in this case, we have to vote with our gold AND our actual cash.