That would have been a good argument of they had announced it’s limited status at the beginning of the expac. They didn’t announce it at all, however, and we have seen no evidence that they would have unless someone had noticed something on the ptr.
6 Likes
This is a stupid decision. Luckily I can just buy mine now, but removing mounts just to push token sales is ridiculous.
No wonder your games are floundering.
1 Like
Come on, Activison would never do something so shady to make a quick buck for the quarter, right?
/eyeroll
3 Likes
That’s still fewer things to strive for.
Blizzard, the people you said you trust so much that you didn’t even need a reason to support their decision, have said that the the only reason they are moving the mount to the BMAH is because of it’s AH access. Therefore your assertion that the mount will stay rare means that you support keeping the mount on the vendor.
I was kinda hoping to get it in the next gold rush when Shadowlands launches, but I’ll live without it. I’m not going to break my back to make 5mil over it in the next year. I’m just raid logging. >_>
2 Likes
The difference is the Grand Expedition Yak and the deliciously creepy spider mounts are still available for purchase.
I just recently bought the Yak for my kids since they love transmoging more than anything else in the game short of pet collecting.
4 Likes
Stop answering to anyone, since you are trolling. And yes, it is a technicality. Having it appeared once in a blue moon, and just the one us to fight over instead of the unlimited supply there is now is virtually removing it from the game. Yes, technically, you are right. Technically. That makes it a technicality.
Ouch, so sorry to read that… But let’s say they can make an argument about that, since the cloaks were the xpack’s legendaries. I don’t see any possible argument to be made about a gold-sink, vendor mount.
Add a FoS for those who did it in time, and sense of accomplishment fulfiled.
They broke in-game economy with the Garrisons (another sin for WoD) and their gold-missions. By the end of the xpack, those who weren’t expelled from the game (or lack thereof by that time) made tons of money.
Afterwards, in Legion, the did it all again, mostly with classes that had the insta-finish missions trait.
How about a unique mount model? Isn’t that content? Since MoP most gold-sinks are unique (I said “most” because WoD had a boar most people don’t even know about)
Then it should be presented as such. It was not, there’s no challenge but a finger up the rear.
Without portals to help you do it faster
As far as I’m concerned, they haven’t yet. Unless they come back with an explanation, that doesn’t count as an announcement AT ALL
They should keep the Brutosaur in the vendor, and offer those who used tokens to buy it a refund (deleting the mount from their accounts, of course). That’s the only solution, and that’s the only right thing to do. This shady “mishandling” of information seems just like a play to get people to give them money
They could’ve just replace the NPC. The yak used to offer reforge, not transmog.
Read the blue post at the beginning of the thread. They are removing it.
Which one? Why haven’t they come clean about it? For all anyone knows there isn’t, same as with portals or water striders. Best case scenario, it’s just a whim. Worst case scenario, is a play to scam people out of their money.
7 Likes
You are absolutely right about that. I remembered something else being there before the transmog guy but couldn’t remember who or what it was.
1 Like
It was a reforge NPC. He got removed because they took reforging out of the game completely. I guess you could argue its semantics about changing out vendors on the mounts since the feature was removed fro the game in that instance, but it is a bit of precedent.
1 Like
I understand, I honestly like the transmog guy.
For the dinosaur mount though I wonder if people would accept removing the AH guy in order for them to keep him in game. To be fair let the people who already own it keep their AH turtle fella and tie a feat of strength to it.
Hell I would even be willing to buy one that had no npcs on it for more reasonable price.
2 Likes
I think part of the trouble is that there are a number of solutions that could leave the brutosaur in game, some of which don’t sound like they’d be hard to implement, but Blizzard is sticking to their guns with reasoning that is a bit hard to swallow no matter which angle you look at it.
5 Likes
I agree. I don’t like the removal of things that don’t warrant removal for a legitimate reason.
Like those ahead of the curve mounts that they removed to memorialize people’s achievements prior to the next expansion that trivialized prior hard content. I can understand and support that.
3 Likes
I’m for that. I would love to ride that dino no vendors at all.
2 Likes
They could just keep the price the same. I’m not even sure the AH is the driving force for the mount anyway, I honestly just think it’s the model considering it’s the only one in the game.
4 Likes
it says something when 18 days after this post was put up, it’s still near the top of the general-discussion threads.
2 Likes
At least so far Blizzard hasn’t behaved like Googletoob, massaging the likes and dislikes.
You mean like when they continously deleted and reuploaded the diablo immortal trailer to try and rejig the like/dislike ratio?
Or how they made it impossible to dislike blue posts?
Or how they removed dislikes all together once people started disliking the shill posts that were positively replying to blue posts?
How about blizzcon questions being curated to prevent any negativity?
What about how they no longer report sub numbers because of how bad they are?
Activision-Blizzard is just as scummy as any other multi-billion dollar multinational corporation.
5 Likes
They gave us a very clear reason here in this thread:
They are removing the Mighty Caravan Brutosaur from the vendors because they don’t want to see AH mounts cluttering up their view.
They didn’t explain why they put an AH on a mount in the first place if they were worried about everyone having one. Or why the mount wasn’t labeled on the vendors as limited to begin with. They’ve also given no reason why there are no other Brutosaur mount models available except the MCB.
A plain, one-seater Brutosaur with no AH or other vendors wouldn’t go against their reasoning for removing the MCB and would go a long way toward smoothing over this fiasco. Players who already bought the MCB could add a second Brutosaur to their collection if they wished, others would at least have access to a Brutosaur mount.
3 Likes
I have a feeling there are a lot of people whining about this who will never have enough gold to buy one no matter how long it’s around.
2 Likes
So if I had 5 million gold, didn’t want the mount, and still said removing the mount from a vendor is stupid, what then?
9 Likes