Feb 24th 2012 9:45AM You should have just read the story, and then you would have seen it in paragraph 8?
Feb 10th 2012 4:29PM I know that there is a different tax per state in the US - but that price difference is extortionate.
$49.99 = £31.71
UK VAT is 20% so just over £40 be nearer the mark?
Jan 6th 2012 12:50PM The villain in Mists of Pandaria will be Dick van Dyke.
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
Oct 11th 2011 4:33PM So basically if you don't have time to farm the gold for the ilevel 378 BOE drop, but you do have cash, instead of spending a set amount and getting lets say 20k gold, you now have to buy a $10 pet or 2 and HOPE you get enough gold to be able to afford that BOE.
I've always believed that games companies didn't like item/gold sellers, simply because they didn't like other people making cash from their IP, and were too worried about player reaction to sell cash themselves. The hacking/account theft argument has always been a bit of a smoke screen to me and now with this, it looks like Blizzard have proven me right.
Will this slow or speed up the exodus from WoW?
Apr 15th 2011 5:35AM 100% of stupid comments from idiots, is why I no longer play :)
Apr 14th 2011 7:55PM I tried mouse control once, and lasted five minutes, before I had to switch back. It created the same effect as I always get when I try to play any FPS, a severe headache and a feeling of nausea. It's also the same effect that 3D televisions/gaming consoles have on me and from what I can gather about 10% of people suffer the same way.
Apr 4th 2011 2:20PM I think one of the reasons for the battery scenario, is the volume of 'fake' batteries or compatible ones, from cheap sources on eBay etc.
Feb 1st 2011 6:20PM A dick move?
Maybe so, but then the reply from Robin actually illustrated what annoyed me from the start.
Quoted from article - "It's not you. It's not us. It's your government."
Quoted from reply - "I am sorry that I don't actually know the restrictions that prevent the legal department from letting us make this giveaway available to the UK"
Had the article stated the truth - "It's not you. It's us. We can't be bothered to research the law of every country from which we get visitors, so we are sticking to the safe path." - then I would have ignored the competition article, as I do every other.
And I mean the site 'we' rather than singling out Robin.
Should I support the site by allowing adverts when they quite clearly don't value my visit enough to do a little research or be honest with me?
Feb 1st 2011 3:17PM I don't actually care, but the inference that the reason for the restriction is down to other countries, rather than the site/company being bothered to find out the law, is what's annoyed me.
I know that this site likes the overseas visitors as it increases their visitor statistics (and perceived value), and probably loves the ones who click through on the adverts, it's just a pity that the same site can't be bothered to reward those international visitors by doing a little legal research.
Oh well, this site has now had it's exemption from Adblock removed, and maybe international visitors should all block adverts on this site and it's brethren, until we start being treated like valuable visitors?