It’s conceivable that “maintenance mode” for WoW might involve things like occasionally adding in a new instance or bg, possibly limited time or rotating, while the primary game is geared at collectors and alt levelers. There are a lot of ways they could go now that they’ve made the expansions modular and refined most game play into easily-reskinnable systems.
1 Like
^This is the answer to the first question.
They aren’t removing it from the vendors because they have anything against the model. They specifically said they don’t want to see AH mounts be as common as repair mounts. That gives them all the more reason to introduce new, non-AH brutosaur mounts in 8.3. There is no reason not to.
4 Likes
If that were the case they would need to announce their intentions all at once. That would also not warrant removing the previous version. And if they didn’t want people to have mobile AHs they should never have added that mount in the first place.
1 Like
That would ruin the surprise.
That would also not warrant removing the previous version
Exclusivity
And if they didn’t want people to have mobile AHs they should never have added that mount in the first place.
Hindsight is 20/20
There should be no surprise with a hugely expensive in game item. More like, that would ruin token sales.
No vendor mount has ever been removed before. So not buying it.
How convenient huh? They just happen to stand to make thousands of dollars over this lack of foresight.
1 Like
It’s crazy to me to think that so many players depend on buying tokens for gold. If they didn’t depend on tokens for gold then that wouldn’t be the first thing that pops into their mind when we’re talking about large sums.
Some of us can still make gold the old fashioned way. That’s just a horrible argument.
Thousands of dollars…
that’s a whole lot for a multi-billion dollar company. We’ll see just how many players decided it was fine time to spend $500 on tokens, like you guys claim, when the mount is removed and only 3-4% of the player-base still owns one since 3% own one now. I don’t believe we’ll see over 4% owning one.
2 Likes
When we’re talking about large sums in very limited times? Yes, tokens are the fastest, most reliable way to make gold.
What’s sad is they think they’ll make more money this way then from players subbing over time to grind the gold.
It only takes 2 people buying tokens for it to make them $1k, how many people would it take to make that number go up 1%? Probably a lot more than 2.
2 Likes
Well, we’ll just have to see if this idea holds any water once the mount is removed from the vendor. We’ll need to see the % of accounts that own the mount. Currently we’re still sitting at 3%, so it hasn’t budged any yet.
For sure more than 2, so we’ll have to sit back and watch the % of accounts owning one sky rocket if what many of you are saying in this thread is true.
Maybe you missed my point. It doesn’t have to skyrocket for them to make thousands of dollars off it. Wouldn’t even need to go up 1% for them to make that. Going up 1% would definitely confirm it though.
1 Like
Thousands is a water drop in the ocean to a company like Activision-Blizzard. Even tossing a million dollars in token sales isn’t anything astronomical.
Once again. Sad that they think the tokens they’ll sell will outweigh the people who would have subbed to grind the gold over time for it.
2 Likes
That’s pure speculation. 100% speculation with no backing.
So, we’ll just have to wait and see if your speculation is correct when the mount hits a much larger percentage than 3%.
1 Like
Ah, so you’re trolling and not even reading what I’m writing. Have a good sunday.
7 Likes
Trolling? What? You have yourself a wonderful day.
I am a bit perplexed that the only reason given by Blizzard for the removal of the Brutosaur is the concern that ‘in the future’ the AH mount would become unacceptably common. And yet the arguments being used in favor of the mount’s removal regularly use its rarity as some sort of “it wasn’t meant for everyone anyway” justification.
According to Wowhead, the Traveler’s Tundra Mammoth has a 79% ownership 11 years after release. There are 6 kinds of mammoths in the game. The Grand Expedition Yak has a 50% ownership 7 years after release. So while more common than at launch, even the Tundra Mammoth has not achieved a 100% ownership rate.
For comparison, the WoD era Champion’s Treadblade (Alliance only) has a 12% ownership, despite being cheaper than the Grand Expedition Yak.
It is inherently illogical to remove something because it will be too common, but use the uncommonness of that same item as supporting evidence that the removal doesn’t matter.
The high price would keep the Brutosaur rare without having to resort to artificial scarcity. Especially with the reduction in created gold (as opposed to traded gold like that from AH play or selling carries) in BfA compared to WoD and Legion.
10 Likes
Once again, you’re arguing that the mount should stay on the vendor since you’re directly contradicting Blizzard’s stated reason for removing the mount.
Blizzard is worried that it will become too common. You’re saying it will never become too common. Therefore you are arguing that the mount should stay right where it’s at.
7 Likes
Once again, no, I’m not. I am in favor of the mount being removed from the vendor.
I agree with that.
That has little to nothing to do with the context of the small conversation I was having above. lol
It is inherently illogical to be in favor of removing something because it will be too common, but use the uncommonness of that same item as supporting evidence that the removal doesn’t matter.
You advocated for the removal before they stated a reason for it. It’s bad luck for you that one of your main arguments directly contradicts the official reasoning.
8 Likes
Nope. You said you would agree with whatever argument Blizzard made about moving the mount to the BMAH. They said the only reason they are doing that is because they are worried about it becoming too common. You have been arguing constantly that it won’t become too common. Therefore you are directly contradicting Blizzard. This means you are arguing for the mount to stay right where it’s at.
How can you possibly agree with that when you keep arguing that the mount will stay rare?
It has everything to do with it. Your stated reasons for wanting the mount to be changed are in direct opposition to Blizzard. That means you are either arguing in bad faith or you’re arguing for the mount to stay where it’s at.
3 Likes
Yeah, but I also have a mind of my own and can come up with my own extra reasoning. I don’t fall into a hive-mind like many on this forum.
Cool, see my above response. I am my own person and can agree with something or bits and pieces of something.