If there has been an ongoing “Backpack Mog Mega-Thread” with thousands of posts I must have missed it.
1 Like
Exactly. I didn’t know I wanted a light saber scythe in Legion till blizz said “here’s a light saber scythe”.
1 Like
So this must have been OP, not me. However if you want this mog then yes you “have to”.
It is pretty difficult to not dovetail in to the “microtransactions in a sub game” argument when the only way to obtain this gear is via a very large “microtransaction”.
As to the rest of it…
Fairly certain - players have always complained, but, previous mounts required a 3 month sub, not 12. Now you could argue, there were 4 mounts, so same difference, but that assumes you wanted all 4.
Also - Blizzard acknowledged that a good chunk of players used RaF on themselves for 300% xp bonus (which is now capped at 50% and doesn’t stack with heirlooms) so the value proposition for those players is now non-existent.
Blizzard has already acknowledged during their shareholder calls as well as to streamers that sub-count is no longer the “best” metric to track WoW’s financial success.
If BFA has been any indication, the new store mount per quarter, as well as 2 6-month lock-in promotions … then it is very obvious that monetization has become a staple of their new business model. Mind you some of these quarters only had these store promotions, mounts, store items to show for them as “content”. As opposed to actual stuff to do in-game.
So if you think that the store isn’t negatively impacting the game then you are either intentionally ignoring facts or just flat out delusional.
The dynamic has shifted from “we need content to keep players engaged/subbed in order to hit our financial targets” to “just throw another mount up on the store and enough people buy it to keep us on target”.
Do you really think it’s baseless? Blizzard let go of tons of QA testers and each patch has been fraught with bugs.
So sure you can make the case that it might not be “cause and effect” but to make the case that there is no “correlation” is just ridiculous.
Can you please fix the typo in the title? 
Again, no. I can’t say this in new ways to make this any clearer. If you want this stuff:
a) Recruit friends
b) Be sad you can’t get it
c) Accept you are willing to spend $150 to get it and don’t blame Blizzard for your decision
This is not only available by you paying money to the game store, so calling it a microtransaction is just disingenuous and an attempt to shirk responsibility onto Blizzard. There are plenty of things you can fairly drop at Blizzard’s feet; this is not one of them.
Yeah, actually, when you think about it, $150 might be a fantastic deal for all this stuff if you are someone who would have bought them if they were just in the store. I mean, 2 mounts, 1 pet, a title, a mog set, and a backpack. The two mounts and a pet alone would probably set you back $75 or more.
Yeah, maybe because they want people to… recruit friends!
It’s baseless because you have to assume the art team does everything for this to have any grounding in reality.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard a total of zero people that have issues with BfA complain that the problem is the artwork. The best argument I can squeeze out is “if we got less store mounts, maybe we would have gotten tier sets”, but even that’s a bit of a stretch since tier sets (as traditionally implemented) are not just a mog set.
So yeah, unless the art team is responsible for warfronts, islands, class mechanics/design, the TF/WF system, the HoA and Essence system, Pathfinder, world quests, War Mode, and whatever else people are griping about these days, then there’s zero reason to correlate the existence of cosmetic items in a store with deterioration of the game.
Which leaves us with only one argument: Not being able to get certain cosmetic items without spending money makes the game bad. And while I dislike the game store because, yes, I do think for a sub game we should be able to get things without spending additional money, I can’t sit here and say with any degree of sincerity that the game is objectively worse because of the game store. It’s melodramatic at best to suggest this is the case.
For the last time, I’m not saying “you” the player pays for it. However, this is a financial transaction funded by “some” player paying real money and therefore only available via the “store” (or promotion in this case).
Whether you choose to obtain it, either by paying yourself or finding some “friend” to do it for you - does not take away from the fact that it requires real money to be given to Blizzard.
It is not obtainable by any means as an in-game reward.
Therefore it is a microtransaction by definition. Ignoring this is just flat out false.
It has nothing to do with “shirk responsibility onto blizzard”. It is just a statement of fact. If it’s not available as an in-game reward it is a micro-transaction - regardless of who is paying. Full stop. Like all microtransactions, it is your choice to pay it or not (or find a proxy to pay it for you).
I am well aware that an art team member is not a developer. I don’t think they are game designer either. I made no assertions to that effect.
I am not arguing that the store directly makes the game worse (“cause and effect”).
I’m saying that the store gives them the financial wiggle room to release a mediocre product and “get away with it”.
BFA is pretty terrible. While that is subjective, there is no shortage of reviewers, streamers, wow forums, mmo-champ forums, etc. that would agree with that sentiment. That being said, from a financial standpoint, its been largely successful - since the store can make up for that lost sub revenue.
If you think that that is somehow good for the game then you are delusional.
So…
Does the store make the game worse? No.
Does it make the game better? No.
Does it encourage Blizzard to make WoW the best game it can be? No.
Does it discourage Blizzard to make WoW the best game it can be? No.
Does it permit Blizzard to make WoW worse (intentionally or unintentionally) and absorb financial repercussions? Yes.
While we do not benefit as players from Blizzard “suffering financial losses”, we also do not benefit from them having no consequences either.
Honestly, just do what I am doing and save up for WoW Tokens and get it that way, I would also say wait until the next expac is in beta, they started with unique back items with the Tauren totem, more heritage armor sets might have them and there might more unique items in general.
1 Like
But this isn’t a fair statement, since what the person pays for is the game and game time, not the cosmetic rewards.
So no, it’s not a microtransaction unless you define paying for the game as a microtransaction. It’s a kick back for getting more subs. It’s the same mentality as, say, a referral bonus when you get someone a job at your company. I’m not furious with my company because I can’t get that bonus unless I get them another employee.
I agree with the first four statements. The existence of the store has no influence on those factors, I completely agree. I’m not arguing the store is good, I’m arguing that the store isn’t bad for the game. Which brings us to your last point -
If you can provide evidence to back up this claim, I’ll defer to your assessment. But without evidence, it’s just conjecture. I don’t know how much they make from microtransactions so its hard for me agree that it pads financial hits from loss of subs to a degree significant enough to impact the game the way you are insinuating.
The other thing is microtransactions are one time revenue while a subscription gets them money month on month. Subscriptions are the vastly superior revenue stream for them (or any company really), independent of how much the game store brings in. From a business perspective, it’s dramatically more important to bring on more subs and maximize retention than it is to score some once off dollars.
This assumes you have found a “friend” to pay it for you. Do you consider tokens a micro-transaction? I could hypothetically use in-game gold to purchase any store mount. Do we agree store mounts are a micro-transaction?
Cute example, but not really relevant. I can earn more money in my current role by just working harder and getting a raise or a larger bonus. The employee referral kickback is still just money.
By that analogy - if getting Blizzard additional subs just earned me a token for an existing in-game mount I can earn in-game, then you’d have an apples to apples comparison.
A more apt analogy would be if your company gave all it’s employees PC’s. If you wanted a Mac (and you are into that sort of thing) you need to participate in the company’s employee referral program. Is it worth your time to go for the Mac? Some people might not think so. Could you just buy your own Mac? Sure. Would some employees feel cheated and/or compelled to get “referrals” absolutely.
The last quarterly earnings call prior to BFA…
Then there was the time the time they stopped reporting sub-numbers during the nose-dive in WoD. Then the 1 year lockin for Tyrael’s mount when they had no incoming content. Followed by the 2 6-month promotions during BFA.
So do I have “hard” evidence? No. I’m not a detective nor a reporter, but you don’t have to be a meteorologist to make an observation about the weather.
Not if they release at least one new mount per financial quarter - which they have done. Then its a repeated 1 time transaction.
If that were true the F2P business model would not exist.
Again - if you keep stocking the store with new items - and folks are willing to buy them - you can offset the cost.
1 new store mount is $25, so just shy of 2 months of game time. If you bought the 4 mounts during the last 4 financial quarters that is roughly the equivalent of a 6 month sub.
Using exclusive cosmetic material is a salesman’s tactic of making the client feel excluded if they don’t jump on it. Though they may make it look innocent, it’s actually incredibly shady and greedy. An example is the Deathwing Exclusive Mount for the Anniversary. Blizzard execs sit around a table and come up with this stuff because they know it will bring in more players as nobody wants to miss out on that amazing piece of pixels. It’s a dark strategy that plays with your emotions and heartstrings.
What does all of the above mean, OP? It means they aren’t going to change a thing because it’s designed this way on purpose. To make them as much money as possible. They do not care about your feelings.
Uh, yeah, of course it does. The program is called Recruit a Friend.
Any scheme an individual follows where they purchase all the game time rather than recruiting friends is, no matter what anyone says, clearly not following the expressed intent of the program. Anyone interested in defining the rewards baked into the RAF program from a perspective other than literally recruiting friends, is basing their entire argument on leveraging RAF in the wrong way.
You can say “but Blizzard knows people will abuse it so they’re exploiting that” but that conjecture + “evil corporation” and does not absolve people from making their own decision to spend $150 to abuse the RAF program. I mean, I won’t argue that there are a lot of dumb people in the world, but are we to assume that humans are just taller lemmings? Anyone crying about the “cost” of the RAF rewards is putting themselves in the position of it being a cost to them in the first place.
Yes, of course. I feel like maybe you are not understanding me if you think you need this level set.
Your analogy just replaces “referral bonus” with “Mac”, but its somehow a better analogy? Okay, sure.
I get why they’d feel compelled to referrals; that’s the point of the program. But why would people feel cheated in your scenario?
These are details I did not have, which show the microtransactions do better than I expected. Maybe you’re on to something then, but it still feels like it’s in conspiracy territory instead of just accepting that companies like to make money. Again, I dislike the game shop, I’m just not completely convinced the revenue it drives leads to worse game content. Though I can at least see how that conclusion can be drawn now.
The two mounts prior to the alabaster mounts were both initially free for people that paid a 6-month subscription though, which means we can’t assume they got as many one time sales off either compared to other mounts.
Also, the fact that they were incentives to lock people into paying 6 more months is supporting evidence that recurring revenue is superior to one time revenue. That’s exactly why they linked the mounts to subscriptions.
No. Just because subscription is superior doesn’t mean no one will do one time charges. The problem with subscription is even if its a superior revenue stream, it’s harder to keep and harder to sell. But if you can make it stick, it’s easier to maintain once you have it. Kind of like how Amazon Prime probably gets a lot of revenue from people that just forget to turn it off after their trial runs out.
This appears possible in WoW’s case based on the numbers you shared, but this is often not the case with subscription services outside the world of games (I intended to be talking in general about subscription services). But yeah, in WoW’s case, since they seem to get so much from adding a mount to the store, there’s clear merit for them to devote some of the art team’s time to churning out game shop items. Especially when the people that would need to be devoted to retaining subscriptions is a different team(s).
1 Like
There is an option D) create new accounts and pay for the game time via gold from the primary account.
1 Like
The threads have existed for s long time talking about backpacks and other back slot cosmetics. Not one mega thread, though.
Here’s a couple from the newer forums. And we used to talk about it on the old forums, too. It also comes up in other threads about cosmetics, as well.
So yes, people have been asking for quite some time. 
And I doubt this is the only backpack that will exist.
You realize the same was true with all the old RaF rewards. Nothing new here.
Btw, can I recruit you for a year? 
1 Like
Is there a restriction preventing you from recruiting yourself? Forcing you to use a different ip or a different account?
Otherwise this will go down just like the other “RaF” programs (recruit yourself).
And yet it isn’t prohibited. I wonder why that is. Evil or not, is as subjective as “it’s on the players”.
Mac as-in the PC. Sure it is better. Your analogy assumed that the employee referral bonus isn’t just cash, just like you dont just earn cash (same currency) for your normal job. IFF you want to argue equivalency, they need to actually be equivalent. So the employee referral program needs to offer a reward that you can’t otherwise earn throughout your daily job.
I didn’t say it did. It can indirectly lead to poor decision making in the form of prioritizing “value add” (cash for company) over “value add” (player enjoyment).
I mean, a 6 month promotion is hardly “free”. This assumes players regularly sign up for 6 sub month increments (or higher).
I mean that’s pretty “conjecture”-ish wouldn’t you say? My own conjecture would be it is indicative of their fear of people leaving due to lack of content - so let’s lock them in - who cares if they log in or not during that period.
Then too bad for people who use the RAF program that way?
“How dare Blizzard make the workaround I use to get things cost more than it did before!”
That’s the argument you’re defending.
So because people can do it, people are “forced” to do it?
What’s really hysterical about all this is I bet people would actually be more pissed off if they couldn’t shell out $150 to get this stuff and had no choice but to recruit friends to get it. “Blizzard killing fun”, that kind of thing that people like to say so much.
What? If you pay for a 6 month sub, you get access to the game for six months. If you also get a mount out of it, that mount is free. Kind of like if you sign up for a new cable service and they throw in a premium channel.
How someone chooses to use their subscription is left to them to decide. I’m not sure how playing the game more or less influences the reality that the mount is a giveaway. The best argument I can even come up with is if you never play the game, you can’t actually use the mount. But if you’re not playing, why would you want the mount in the first place?
Yeah, your conjecture is not mutually exclusive to what I said. I stated that they want to maintain sub revenue. You clearly agree with me but just have tacked on some conspiracy to it.
Ultimately, you have no valid counter argument here. The RAF rewards are simply not a really expensive microtransaction. Anyone who treats it that way has done so of their own volition by specifically choosing to not leverage other methods of acquisition of these rewards, including the method literally in the name of the RAF program.
By actively choosing to treat the RAF rewards as a microtransaction, you don’t get to turn around and blame Blizzard for your decision.
2 Likes
You just know most of the people defending this would flip their lid if it was locked behind mythic raiding.
This cloak model should be achievable in-game, without dropping cash on MTX.
I know milking the whales makes bank but they could just give them like a different color one, they would still shell out for it.
Simple solution. Offer the set on the Game Shop for $15.00 as an alternative. People who want to recruit friends and get the rewards the way RAF offers it can do so. People who want the mog for the mog’s sake can also get it. Blizzard gets both sources of revenue and everyone is happy?
While we’re at it, do the same for Allied Race Heritage Armor? May as well. ¯\ (ツ) /¯
Make a friend, recruit them.
I’m here because I’m an addict. I’m not going to drag anyone I care even remotely about down into the dumpster fire with me.
If there is an item you want, and there’s only one way to get it, then the only way to NOT be forced into doing that way is to stop wanting it. You can’t make someone stop wanting something by telling them to stop wanting it.
2 Likes