Patch 5.2 interview with Dave Kosak
Inside an old alt's vault
The latest patch 5.2 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria 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 4 of 8)
AudreyR Oct 11th 2011 6:27PM
Let's look at the math in another way. It will cost me more than 10th bucks to go watch the new Muppet movie.
Neither is tangible. I won't get an actual copy of The Muppets unless I spend even more later, either on a physical or digital copy or I pick up a Netflix sub.
However, with the guardian cub, I get a Cute-as-a-button addition to my merry menagerie.
I have spent more money on things that have given me less satisfaction before.
For instance, I have a tattoo of SS Vegeta on my shoulder blade that cost me a lot more. I stopped caring about DBZ not long after I got it.
Unlike the tattoo, digital pets will not be a regret that stays with me if they come to that.
Revynn Oct 11th 2011 4:26PM
A red flag instantly goes up for a lot of people as soon as you mention RMT's. There's the "Blizzard is an evil mega-Corp that hates midgets and wants to rob your children" group, the martyrs ("This is the LAST STRAW Blizzard! I'm quitting! See me quitting here? I'm doing it I swear!"), the people I affectionately refer to as "GIR's" (I'm gonna sing the doom song now! Doom doom-dy doom doom doom doomy doomy doom!) as well as the hardened Blizz Defenders.
Personally . . . Meh. If this turns into the slippery slope that everyone fears so heavily, then I'll just leave the game. But as it stands I'm not worried about it.
As I said in the announcement post, I won't be buying it for cash. The biggest draw for me with the other pets was that they're account bound and every toon I have and will ever make will get one. Being a one-time use pet for one character puts me off it. If other people want to spend cash on it, that's their decision and none of my business.
Scooter Oct 11th 2011 4:37PM
1. it takes development time away from meaningful content.
2. it's god damn spam.
3. It effects the industry on the whole and socially what people expect.
4. You're paying for extra shit that most of the time should already be part of the game.
Killik Oct 11th 2011 4:56PM
Scooter, I think you're stretching it to call the pet 'spam'.
ravyncat Oct 11th 2011 4:27PM
I think it is a very cute pet.
I'm not sure I will be willing to buy it for $10 when it is not BoA. However...if it is affordable on the AH I might get one. On the other hand if it is just ridiculous on the AH I might pony up the 10 bucks if I decide I need a kitty pet *that* much.
I am not outraged by it in any case. The idea of it does bug me a bit...but I'm not sure why exactly. Maybe a vague fear of change?
Scooter Oct 11th 2011 4:28PM
You know I could say something but I feel this guy I'm about to quote sums it up. Unfortunately I don't have his name, so please chime in if you know who wrote it.
"First, I would like to say I love this game, and have had a great time over the years supporting and enjoying it. But I feel like people are missing the point in the anger over the new pet to be sold.
This game started with set lines, as to what was acceptable, and what was not. Blizzard was consistent with its message to the player base. "We will not sell power, nor Gold. If you pay your subscription fee, you are on a level playing field with everyone else." This was great, because it showed a great level of respect to the player base. And in return, we flocked to a great game, and made it the success it is today.
However over time this has changed, things that Blizzard had been so sure about, (PVE to PVP transfers, Not selling leveling speed, Not putting items in the game that can be bought for real life money, and then sold for gold, not adding expensive features like race/faction change, respecting that if someone pays a subscription fee, all of the content should be available to them if they are willing to work for it.)
Now hear me out. I'm not saying Blizzard is evil because of RAF, or the Pet Store, or the Mobile AH. I'm saying that the level of respect Blizzard showed the customer base has changed over the years. Not necessarily in a bad way, take for example Authenticators, they are a great and helpful addition to the game. But when other games, like Rift don't sell Gold, Leveling speed, or Pets/Mounts for real life money, and even provide services like Realm Transfers for free. It makes me wonder why Blizzard is taking its player base for granted.
I love your games Blizzard, and I am proud to have been a long time supporter of a company I feel produces a quality product. But I for one am moving on, to a producer who respects its consumer base more, and sticks to what it has originally laid out as an acceptable business model. I'll be playing Rift until things go back to how they used to be, hopefully they will sooner then later. Until then.
Goodnight And Good luck, its been a fun few years."
Killik Oct 11th 2011 7:40PM
I think that may have been Martin Luther King Jr.
jimforbes40 Oct 18th 2011 1:00PM
That's just the nature of MMo's evolving over the years since they became popular imho! Times change, people change, games change.
Jnizzle Oct 11th 2011 4:29PM
I really don’t get the hate about this. The day that you can give Blizzard some sum of money and receive a top-geared level 85 character with 100 mounts and 150 pets and maxed professions of your choice, then you may hate. *Holler*. Holler until your face is blue. Until then, channel whatever it is you’re feeling into actually doing the content that you’re provided and see if that makes you feel better. If it doesn’t, and you aren’t having fun playing WoW, then stop playing WoW. Seems simple enough to me.
VioletArrows Oct 11th 2011 4:30PM
To all the folks who want this to be BoA: Just how long do you think Blizzard would be able to ride on the gravy train if they were BoA? They've finished the first experiment phase of how many people would be willing to buy pets and mounts off a cash shop at all. The answer was way more than enough. The next phase of testing is to see how much more they can charge, or augmenting features (boa vs boe) while still getting comparable numbers. Bashiok said it right there at the end. They know full well how many OC collectors and shiny crow people won't be able to resist this either way.
Noyou Oct 11th 2011 4:46PM
I am not one of those people. I am actually pretty insulted that they want to pawn this one time use pet for the same price as a BoA. I'm not even going to get into the buying gold thing. All this does it make me want to take a good look at what I use my entertainment budget on.
VioletArrows Oct 11th 2011 4:53PM
Oh good, cause the next phase is rentals like in Runes of Magic. Not gonna be around much but still *NEEEEEED* that whatsit while you're on? Rent a similar whatzit for ~$5 a week! You're *saving* money. :3
tbutton Oct 11th 2011 4:32PM
So, I don't mind them existing. But, however cute it is, I won't be buying one on the AH: someone might mistake me for the sort of person who pays extra for sparkle ponies and the like. The cash pet store really is a fascinating example of conspicuous consumption in action: people buy these things to prove they have more money than sense.
Kia Oct 11th 2011 4:40PM
Or, you know, we genuinely like the pets.
tbutton Oct 12th 2011 12:13PM
Ask yourself this: if it was like the pink elephant, and only you could see it, would you still buy it?
There are a lot of pets and mounts in the game. I don't believe people so many people really prefer the ones that cost money. I think when they pick the pet, there's an element of, hey, look what I just bought. That's what conspicuous consumption is about. It isn't a intentional decision to flash your money, it's being happy because you have something other people want.
Elenac Oct 12th 2011 12:05PM
Why yes, yes I would buy them even if only I could see them.
Why on earth would anybody only buy them to "show off" that they can afford to buy them? They are $10-$20, not really Ferrari material. And anybody can buy these pets, the are one of the more common ones really. A firefly... you need either _a lot_ of time or luck to farm it yourself, or spend some serious ingame money on the AH. A Blizzard store pet... just drop some cash and tadaa, you have it. So, there is really absolutely no "show off" aspect in a Blizzard store pet. They are pretty and fun, and that is that.
tbutton Oct 12th 2011 12:14PM
That's the point: trotting out one of those pets is announcing that
$10-$20 dollars is insignificant to you. For me, this isn't true,
and I don't want people thinking it's true. So I won't be buying
one of these moggies on the AH.
Being cheap is it's own vanity.
Sally Bowls Oct 11th 2011 4:31PM
I have plenty of gold in WoW so I do like the option to save the $10.
I submit you are not quite correct on the TCG mounts. My guess is most are sold on some ebay type of site with no RNG in the purchase.
The most satisfying thing about this is that it makes the point I make in the forums occasionally, probably even a prior Lawbringer or two: 100% by-the-TOS/EULA gold for RL$ has been in the game for years. Buy ebay TCG loot cards, bark in trade chat, profit.
Second Life, EVE, and D3 are where I currently think I would like this to end up so this seems like a good step.
jtrack3d Oct 11th 2011 4:31PM
I think this is a test ... it isn't the test that Blizzard claims it is, however.
It tests this theory... how low can you force the value of gold to real currency exchange and combat gold selling. Gold selling does hurt blizzard it costs them manpower and manpower is expensive. Manpower to fix exploits and return stolen items.
The gold seller has to sell gold cheap enough that you can easily buy the pet by buying their gold rather than buying this pet directly.
If the pet sells for XYZ gold, then you have to be able to buy XYZ gold for less than $10 otherwise, you could buy the pet and sell it for XYZ gold.
If XYZ is HIGH like 40,000 gold... this means that $10.00 from a gold seller has to get you more than 40,000 gold.
I have no idea how much gold sellers sell gold for... but this definitely puts a squeeze on them and I think that is what Blizzard is testing.
Craig Knighton Oct 11th 2011 4:50PM
What if it goes in the opposite direction?
So many people with $10 spare, but who don't want to buy gold from gold sellers, buy the pets, and list them on the AH, that the price drops to 5000g per pet? Or even more extreme 1000g per pet?
Blizzard have then made 1000g worth $10, or 5000g worth $10 etc etc etc