Blizzard, I just checked the shop in the game.
The Signature card for Reska (DK card, rush and deathrattle takes on random enemy) costs $34.99.
It’s not a hero skin that can be used forever. This is a card being rotated out in a few months.
Daylight robbery? Out of touch of you player base?
Its not daylight robbery.
Daylight had to do with when in a government began to tax the number of windows your house had.
When the tax slave revolted and covered their windows. Sunlight was begin robbed from them. Aka ‘daylight robbery’
You’re both right. You’re talking of the historical roots of the etymology. The dictionaries mainly have the meaning the OP used.
Kids nowadays can only afford renting a place with maybe one window or two. Not many can afford living in a house anymore
Was reading a very interesting article on this topic about USA housing.
And what it noted is that most jurisdictions have adequate bedrooms for the population, but those rooms are concentrated among a demographic that doesn’t need them. In the past people would let out spare rooms in large houses, and this was affordable housing for people. Now the boomers have four, five, six or more bedrooms for two old people.
They aren’t downsizing back to a two bedroom house to let the young families back into neighborhoods.
Both, as well as just fishing for whales and trying to create a sunk-cost fallacy mindset in players that buy it.
Yeah, because if they sold the house, the young couple could totally afford that 6-bedroom house.
dont like it dont buy it the regular ones are the same
if they sell it at those prices means people are spending that much
good for them
Thanks, I will continue to not buy them. And we will continue to mock and call it out here because hearthstone has no proper feedback system. (they tell people to post on here, so they can then be put down by the people who totally don’t work for blizzard on the forums.)
Tell me you don’t understand economics without saying it.
Prices rise in high demand, low supply. The supply is artificially low due to several factors.
for 35 bucks i bought multiple real life yugioh decks containing 50 real life cards each. make it make sense
It’s not that much different than making too many apples but people wanted to buy oranges though.
In other words, or from a different point of view, the young families aren’t ready to live with old parents, sacrifice their privacy, peace and anything, really
Because we both know if the economic aspect was the only possible one, this wouldn’t be happening, but it is, and that’s because some things can’t be bought with money. Or at least not with reasonable amounts of it xD
Said the white boy, raised in a rich family, with plenty of time to play only video games.
Far from that, lol
I make my own time. If I told you what else i can do while playing the video games, you wouldn’t believe me, so I won’t even try.
Rest assured, I never “just” played video games. There are not many video games of interest to me which absorb 100% of your attention, and even if there were, I wouldn’t be playing them in my age.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that this term originated from that. The phrase obviously just implies blatant and unconverted stealing, as if someone was robbing you in broad daylight. And regardless, why are you even pointing that out? It has nothing to do with the point.
I wish this was the case, but I’m pretty sure if they haven’t changed these prices by now it’s because enough whales buy them at any price. You can thank the invisible hand of the market, the most efficient price-setting mechanism humans ever thought of. Perfectly darwinian - such are the laws of nature, folks.
Don’t like it don’t buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy signature cards. Regular version of card work just fine. They sell for that price because people buy at that price. If nobody bought at that price they it would probably lower it until it reaches a price people would buy at.
I mean, it’s a luxury good, it’s meant to evoke pride of ownership
With that in mind, I’m surprised it’s not even more expensive
The fool is not the one who asks but the one who pays.
I reckon any videogame cosmetic behaves like a luxury good in terms of price elasticity.
But there are many things they could consider when it comes to setting their prices. If they wanted to prioritize things like consumers’ utility, overall satisfaction or engagement with the store, they could consider other factors beyond the immediate maximization of profit. They’d prefer more customers buying for less than less customers buying for more, even if that immediately yields less profit, because it maximizes a secondary outcome of customer base broadening and player engagement. This is especially true when you consider the production costs of these products are minimal and demanding higher prices does creat blatantly gross profit margins that consumers aren’t unaware of - which in turn is a reputational risk.
Smaller companies tend to prefer a consumer-focused approach because they need to increase their reach and market presence. Huge companies with very broad market dominance simply stop giving a damn about their customer base. For multiple reasons, some more economic in nature and others purely a consequence of broader shareholder-centric idiosyncrasies prevalent today.
Arguably, this consumer unfriendliness can be their own demise ultimately (ubisoft is a good example of a company teetering on the line of oblivion due to its own greed and incompetence) but shareholders don’t really care anyway. Their money will fly elsewhere in the case of an eventual downfall. So none of this is rational economic behavior. OP is right to complain, even if it’s futile.