The Daily Grind: Your thoughts on Blizzard's new pets
by Krystalle Voecks 
Nov 5th 2009 at 8:00AM
Filed under: Business models, Opinion, The Daily Grind
Considering how several people were unhappy with the Champions Online microtransaction store, we can't imagine this is going over too well with everyone. Some feel that these are just pets and -- while pricey -- aren't anything to make a fuss over. Others feel that this is the top of the slippery slope that will eventually see some form of in-game benefits gained through store purchases, much like many item mall games. This morning we thought we'd ask you. Do you think this is a wonderful idea, and you're glad to see Blizzard exploring the territory? Do you think it's a good idea but the price is way too high -- a macrotransaction rather than a microtransaction. Are you leery but trusting for now? Or is this all a load of crap, and subscription games should make everything available if you're willing to grind it?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Goulashia said on 8:04AM 11-05-2009
As long as they don't make awesome pets exclusively for the pet shop from now on, I'm not too peeved.
I think it's a bit too much for a non combat pet.
Reply
celt_kender said on 8:20AM 11-05-2009
If people actually go for this, then say good-bye to fun vanity pets being drops. Save for possibly the holiday pets, all desired non-combat pets will just be part of the in-game store.
And I agree, $10 is an insane price for a single microtransaction item. Just wait though, like giving a junky his first hit, tons of WoW fans will buy it because, "heck, it's only $10." Then Blizzard will know it's open season on MTs.
RiHahn said on 10:22AM 11-05-2009
The part folks seem to be missing is that it appears this was done for the Make-A-Wish foundation.
celt_kender said on 11:04AM 11-05-2009
The Make-A-Wish foundation, while a very worthy cause, is simply marketing window dressing on this. A window dressing that appears to be working.
Of the two pets up for sale, only one of them applies to the charity. Of that one, it's only 50% of the proceeds. Additionally, it's only for a limited time. If the true intent of this was to assist a charity then it would be both pets and a larger percentage (if not 100%) of the money.
However, I'm sure Blizzard will be happy to know that their marketing ploy is working.
Rambie said on 11:35AM 11-05-2009
In the US you can claim donations to non-profits to help offset your tax liabilities. Does Blizzard get to claim the donation on their taxes?
Anyhow I'm not playing WOW currently, so I've just made a $10 donation to Make-a-Wish instead of the stupid pet. This way I get to claim it on my taxes not Blizzards.
x(wai)x said on 12:01PM 11-05-2009
I used to think the price was too high too.
Then I remembered that Champions pets were about $1 each, considerably cheaper, BUT you only get them on one character.
In that light, $10 for a pet you get on all your current and future characters forever seems like a pretty fair deal to me.
DrewIW said on 8:36AM 11-05-2009
The shark has been jumped.
Reply
Oneiromancer said on 8:16AM 11-05-2009
I won't be spending the money, but I really don't care any more. It's in pretty much every major MMO these days. EQ2 lets you buy non-combat pets, self-illusions, and decorations for your house. LOTRO is introducing this Adventurer's Pack which adds more character slots, a shared bank space, and an item which increases your run speed. Guild Wars lets you buy additional bank storage panes (20 panes per slot) or unlock pets, bonus missions, skills, or items (which isn't really game-changing the way that Guild Wars works). Whatever you feel about RMT, it's the way things are going.
Reply
TommyB said on 8:41AM 11-05-2009
It was only a matter of time before they introduced item shops. I wouldn't be surprised if they started selling stuff other than just pets soon too.
WoW is losing subscribers, so Blizzard is trying to get as much money as possible from the people who still play it. Just look at the recent features: paid faction change, paid race change, and now paid vanity pets.
They haven't opened a new realm (in the EU) for almost a year now... They used to open 1-2 new ones every 3 or so months before.
Reply
Hardy said on 8:20AM 11-05-2009
Just pets and mounts, that's fine. I don't care.
But if they throw exclusive armour/items I out.
I understand they lost a lot of players with China, but if you're going to go into microtransaction go all the way or say at a sub.
Reply
Lethality said on 8:29AM 11-05-2009
I'd like to believe that Blizzard will hold on to their integrity as game developers and not make anything "purchasable" that would have an effect on the outcome of game play. No armor, weapons, etc.
That still leaves room for billions of dollars in profit for this fluff for them.
Reply
Holgar said on 8:33AM 11-05-2009
Thats what I'm thinking/hoping if not..... Well there is always Warcraft 3 WAR to occupy my time isn't there.....
Coldalarm said on 9:47AM 11-05-2009
That's the one thing they've always said, and from what I've seen of EQ2's SC store, it's almost the same there (experience potions).
But I don't think they should go beyond pets or possibly mounts/tabards/vanity items. Adding items with actual PvE/PvP use (such as a new weapon for end game, although paid-for Heirlooms might be a good use of this system) to give an advantage is wrong, though. It's kinda what annoyed me about Free Realms. To get any decent health potions, you need to slap down some cash for membership, which I found kinda unfair.
I don't agree with the prices though, it's ridiculous. I'm still wishing I hadn't put down £20 for a faction change!
Venekor said on 8:14PM 11-05-2009
Pisses me off personally just let me get it via playing the game like how it should be. I hate it when I can't earn everything via playing and have to pay real money cause the developers are greedy. Just proves to be even more that Blizzard can't run a online world. EVE Online is how it should be cause CCP are the only ones that understand how to run an online world.
WoW has been broken and bloated for a long time though.
Reply
Jason said on 8:47AM 11-05-2009
All the people who wouldn't leave WoW for any number of games because they had a cash store will applaud Blizzard for having a cash store.
Reply
John said on 8:49AM 11-05-2009
Blizzard is approaching the slippery slope...I sure hope they have spikes on their shoes...
Reply
Halldorr said on 8:51AM 11-05-2009
It's not something I'd leave the game for but it's yet another thing I find annoying about the game. I think my attitude though is influenced by my being horribly bored with the game. While I paid $40 for the Grunty pet, I think $10 is too high if they are going to start adding lots of pets. I did re-download EVE last night though...and Torchlight has been fun...
Reply
ahac said on 9:00AM 11-05-2009
They were already selling pets and other items with the TCG.
Then they realized that people are buying TCG just to get the pets and just made it easier. :)
Reply
neododge said on 9:01AM 11-05-2009
Seriously, 10 bucks for a pet ?
That and their ridiculous pricing for char transfer and other services, it's a wonder anyone actually pays for this.
Reply
Scuffles said on 9:11AM 11-05-2009
Honestly I think they need to decide what they are and stick with it
Are they a P2P subscription game ?
If so they should include EVERYTHING in game, that's why you original purchased the game, the expansions when they came out and pay them monthly.
Are they a F2P game ?
If so you pay nothing upfront but if you like the game you pay through micro-transactions to get perks here and there, hopefully nothing game breaking. I could also go into a long breakdown of how established players who don't pay also greatly support the game and are often overlooked but I won't, your welcome.
Where they are going seems to be some sort of mutant have your cake and eat it too buy everything up front and we are going to push a micro-transaction store on you. Because if what they did was charity it would have been all the pets not just one and it would have been more than 50%. This was little more than testing the waters with a splash of charity to lessen the initial backlash while they break players in to the idea of P2P Micro-transactions, which in my book is pure fail.
But I do have to agree with the tools, its their game they can do whatever they want with it.... If you don't like it find another game, That's what I did.
Reply