Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 newsBlizzard responds to Guardian Cub controversy
by Matthew Rossi 
Oct 11th 2011 at 4:00PM
Bashiok - Re: Blizzard, you've crossed the line
TCG Loot card mounts like the Spectral Tiger have been BoE for a long time now (since patch 3.2), and that was and continues to be well-received, and as far as we've been able to tell hasn't had any adverse impact to the game or economy - despite them selling for sometimes astronomical amounts of gold.
It's potentially worth noting that no new gold is being introduced into the game's economy with those mounts or the new Guardian Cub pet.
Our goal with the Guardian Cub is to provide alternative ways for players who don't want to spend real money to add these pets to their collection. Even though this has been available a while now with the TCG mounts, this is obviously a new kind of way to deliver Pet Store pets, and we're definitely interested to hear your feedback and ultimately see how this will play out.
It's potentially worth noting that no new gold is being introduced into the game's economy with those mounts or the new Guardian Cub pet.
Our goal with the Guardian Cub is to provide alternative ways for players who don't want to spend real money to add these pets to their collection. Even though this has been available a while now with the TCG mounts, this is obviously a new kind of way to deliver Pet Store pets, and we're definitely interested to hear your feedback and ultimately see how this will play out.
To be fair, since this is exactly what I said about the Cub on the WoW Insider Show this week, I'm already on record as agreeing with him fully. The only difference between the Guardian Cub and loot cards is that you don't have to spend money hoping you'll get the Cub. You spend ten bucks and you know you have one.
Well, also, the thing is adorable. That's not really germane to the discussion, though. What do you think about our friendly Cub? Cute pet, money for gold, soul-meltingly cute step off of the slippery slope? Tell us.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, News items
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 8)
styopa Oct 11th 2011 4:14PM
"It's potentially worth noting that no new gold is being introduced into the game's economy with those mounts or the new Guardian Cub pet."
No, it's not 'worth noting', it's utterly disingenuous to suggest that "merely allowing people to buy something for which people can give them gold", is something more than a trivial difference from actually selling gold for $ yourselves.
The only question remaining is the economic question of what people are willing to pay. Given the massive amounts of gold floating around the WoW economy (some people have millions), that number will likely float to 5+ digits early, and settle in the low 4-digit numbers, depending on the server.
Shark+Jump.
Swift1 Oct 11th 2011 4:48PM
The distinction is neither trivial nor disingenuous. Selling gold requires Blizzard to create it from thin air, which increases a server's monetary base and causes inflation. By selling a commodity that can be traded, the monetary base is not increased and inflation does not occur. There is a big difference between a transferring wealth and printing money.
Didax Oct 11th 2011 5:04PM
There is a very important distinction here.
When buying gold from shady third-parties: you pay cash, you get a pre-defined amount of gold.
When buying a tradeable pet-store pet: you pay cash, you get an item of undefined in-game value.
Blizzard is not selling gold. This is not fundamentally different than going to ebay, buying a bind on use item with real money, and selling it in game for gold. The only distinction is the theoretically unlimited supply, which will only serve to lower prices.
As to your speculation of in-game value, I strongly doubt that many (if any) will pay 5 figures for this pet. I'd imagine within a week or two, the price will decline drastically.
SphynxRunner Oct 11th 2011 4:14PM
It's cute. I'll buy one, and if it doesn't sell, I'll keep it as a pet on my main. Win-win.
Neodarkmatter Oct 11th 2011 4:15PM
I just hope they reconsider making it bound to a single toon to making it bound to Battle.net account upon first use.
mem0ryburn Oct 11th 2011 4:17PM
The single toon thing makes me not want to buy it but I know I will regardless because it's far too cute to pass up.
Single toon for same price. This is the only thing I'm concerned about with this pet. It sucks.
Bobby Earl Oct 11th 2011 7:32PM
The "single toon for same price" complaint isn't really valid considering this pet is not the same type of item as previous Pet Store pets. In the past you have paid $10 for an item that all your toons received but was bound to you, now you're paying $10 for a single item with which you can do what you want. In essence you are paying "more" for convenience and flexibility. Also, the reason it is not offered in a BoA version is that, by doing so, one of the main purposes of the item would be negated (ie, as a means to help equalize and redistibute server wealth). If everyone who had no interest in selling them but merely wanted them for all their toons could get a BoA version of it there would be no in-game market at all for the pet and the BoU aspect would be moot.
mem0ryburn Oct 11th 2011 4:15PM
Like I said in the comments section of this morning's Tuesday Morning Post, I think far too much is being made of this. This is not cats4gold.
AROD Oct 11th 2011 4:18PM
My argument is not from the seller or buyer perspective it is as simple as I want to buy this pet and instead of being BoA not I have to spend 10 bucks for every single one of my toons. Having said that lets look at "It's potentially worth noting that no new gold is being introduced into the game's economy with those mounts or the new Guardian Cub pet." It is true but they are looking into new ways to increase their revenue stream, the pet should be BoA if you choose not to sell it and 1 item per purchase if you put it in the AH.
HappyTreeDance Oct 11th 2011 4:20PM
I'm torn on this one.
Or rather, I should say, I hope all the pet store pets don't go in this direction. I don't mind spending $10 and having a pet that ALL of my toons get. That way if I switch mains or decide to do something insane, like collect 150 pets on a second toon, I won't have to spend more money or gold to do it. And I like making a new toon and going to the mailbox to claim all of my shiny "Welcome Level 1 character!" pets.
That's the only reason I'm hesitant to support this with my real money. I don't want Blizzard to abandon the account wide pet model in favor of this. As long as we can have both models at the same time, I guess I'm cool with it, but if all the pets become one pet for $10, I'm much less likely to continue buying them.
RzN Oct 11th 2011 4:28PM
My sentiments exactly.
I can't get over the loss of value with this. 10$ for an infinite number of a pet or 10$ for one. If they just introduced an option to get the BoE or BoA, I think this would have been perfect.
And maybe next time, experiment with a pet that isn't a companion to an existing BoA mount. That just hurts even more.
brain314 Oct 11th 2011 6:53PM
The catch here is that you don't have to pay $10 for 1 pet for 1 character. You can (theoretically) buy one off the AH for xxxx gold. The prevailing theory is that the gold cost of the pet will roughly related to the current server gold/USD exchange. So if the gold sellers on your server are selling gold at 10,000g per $10, then that's what people are expecting the pet to go for. 10,000g for a pet seems excessive on my server, 5k is more like it for rare pets. We'll just have to see how Blizzard's great big cash experiment works out.
HappyTreeDance Oct 11th 2011 7:10PM
Well I understand that, of course.
But I know what I'll do. I won't want to pay for the pet because it's $10 for only one toon. And then I'll see one on the AH for some amount of gold, and say "Pft, I'm not spending that much, the stupid thing is only worth $10, I can just go buy it myself." But then I'll remember that it's $10 for only one pet.
Basically, unless these things are listed super cheap on the AH, I'm not buying one either for real money, or for gold. I'm willing to drop a lot of gold on rare pets on the AH because they're rare. I'm not willing to drop a lot of gold for a common pet.
chrisdick Oct 11th 2011 4:21PM
I highly disagree with Blizzards comment and direction here.
Comparing this to the TCG cards is not the same at all, and is a completely different tactic designed to mislead the readers. I think Blizzard has most definitely placed the slipperly slope here at this time, and all in the name of greed.
To try to say this is not introducing new gold into the economy is an attempt to deflect criticsm that gold sellers do introduce new gold - NOT TRUE at all. Gold sellers are merely reintroducing gold that already exists within accounts that are hacked or stolen.
I have already cancelled my Diablo 3 pre-order due to the real-life auction house, and this pet (and the future direction it is creating) is really a cause of future concern.
Rolly Oct 11th 2011 4:23PM
Good for the bottom line, might have a negative effect on subscriptions though.
Rachel Oct 11th 2011 4:24PM
They should at least make it more like the current legendary pet people can get. You get one pet it's BOE, one you use it, it becomes BOA and you just have to mail the pet to the characters you want to have the pet (instead of the pet auto mailing to all your alts). I really hate the fact that it's $10 for 1 character instead of all characters.
tbutton Oct 11th 2011 4:24PM
I don't understand the apocalyptic scenario. Yes, people can use this to buy gold. But no one can use it to sell gold for anything more valuable than a flying moggie. If Basil wanted to cash out and turn 1,000,000 gold into actual currency, this doesn't provide a way to do that, so it doesn't open the door to for-profit goldfarming. Now, if you could sell them back to Blizzard for cash, that would be a problem.
It's cosmetic, it doesn't let people cash in, I don't see the problem.
Scooter Oct 11th 2011 4:32PM
It's remarkably similar to email spam in that its in the game, you can't do anything about it, and the only reason you have to put up with it is because some jerk or jerks decided to use it to squeeze whatever money they can out of people.
It's also another step closer to having in-game advertisers in the form of an NPC following you around annoying you and other people....oh wait the pet does that already...we have been paying to be spammed.
Bellajtok Oct 11th 2011 4:25PM
Mind if I do a little math here? Thanks.
So let's assume you would put this money into subscription time if you didn't spend it on this. At ten dollars, it's worth about two-thirds of a month of playing time. So is it worth that time?
mem0ryburn Oct 11th 2011 5:19PM
For some it is and for some it's not, I'm not sure I get the point you're trying to make