Shady stipulation re: the new Wondrous Wavewhisker Mount

[Quivermethis-rexxar]

@Virus-nagrand

It’s actually a little different now, in the past you could just pay for a 6/12 month sub

Meh I find this system better. At any time, you can sign up for a 6 month sub up until the last day of the promo and get it, next day you get the NEXT 6 month sub mount.

And you get to save money. I really don’t see the problem. /shrug

[Remei-windrunner]

@Sendryn-sentinels

Which is funny, because the OP just agreed with you, yet they tried to call me out on defending Blizzard.

I’ve not attempted to “call [you] out on defending Blizzard.” (If I had, I would’ve stated: “Quit simping for Blizzard.”) Simply put, I “liked” Virus statement simply because I agree with it.

@Elaera-windrunner

That the mount is lost if it was learned and unwrapped is incorrect, if you got the mount from the promotion and it is learned and unlocked in collections, you keep it regardless of what you do with your subscription after.

If the mount was still in the ‘wrapped’ phase in collections, then it could potentially be removed if cancelling the sub during the promotion.

I still disagree with and, thus, dislike Blizz’s stipulation; but your additional explanation is clear. Thank you.

@Virus-nagrand

It’s actually a little different now, in the past you could just pay for a 6/12 month sub and get the reward, there was no stipulation about leaving it on auto-renew, that’s the difference that people are discussing here.

And that is the detail that I’ve missed: Blizz moved the goalposts and I didn’t realize as much; now I realize it and, still, dislike it. So be it, though.

[Virus-nagrand (Virus)]

@Remei-windrunner

So be it, though.

Yup, it is what it is.

I’ll leave you to it now though, sorry for temporarily hijacking your discussion

[Remei-windrunner]

@Virus-nagrand

Yup, it is what it is.

I’ll leave you to it now though, sorry for temporarily hijacking your discussion

Ha! No worries. Honestly, it needed some form of hijacking.

[Teufelgott-shadowsong (Teufelgott)]

@Maizou-proudmoore

Except you are wrong.

For their Monthly Active Users metric, Blizzard counts users with active game time.

Congratulation, you just repeatedly exactly what I said.

[Sendryn-sentinels]

@Virus-nagrand

The only difference is that in the past, the 6/12 month promo sub mounts were granted regardless of whether or not you had auto-renew active

I’ll look further back, but this is Wen-Lo’s promotion:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/content/10298-Wen-Lo-the-River’s-Edge-New-Mount-Reward-for-a-6-Month-Subscription?page=4

Here also is the Sprite Darter set, which says the same thing:

6 months subscription rewards

Just to point out, it does not just state buy 6 months, get reward. Once you’ve purchased the 6 Months subscription from the Blizzard Shop, the Sprite Darter’s Wings transmogrification set will automatically be added to your in-game collection. Welcome this dazzling addition to your assortment of appearances! Purchase 6 Months Now Players on an existing 6-month recurring subscription with a future renewal date will receive the Sprite Darter’s Wings transmogrification set as a gift in their…

And another:

Purchase a 6 Month Subscription and Get a New Mount! - WoW

@Remei-windrunner

And that is the detail that I’ve missed: Blizz moved the goalposts

The 2018 promo with the Dreadwake seems to be the only different one, because it wasn’t a 6 month sub, it was purchase 180 days.

[Bluetarski-mankrik]

If people who had already canceled their renewals are getting the mounts then the precedent has been set.

If others who canceled their renewals don’t get the mount Blizzard has no leg to stand on.

They have to treat everyone equally once they gave the mount to others who had canceled.

Blizzard has to give the mount to EVERYONE on a one year sub, period.

[Kainalu-wyrmrest-accord]

I know, reading is hard.

[Quivermethis-rexxar]

@Bluetarski-mankrik

If people who had already canceled their renewals are getting the mounts then the precedent has been set.

Unless blizzard puts it in writing.

But this is also why literally everything has to be in writing because people do this kind of stuff.

[Bluetarski-mankrik]

No.

You can’t give people who canceled their recurring sub, the mount, while not giving it to others who did the same thing.

Player 1 - active 12 month sub - canceled recurring sub
Player 2 - active 12 month sub - canceled recurring sub

Blizzard - Player 1 gets mount, Player 2 doesn’t get mount

There cannot be two sets of rules for the exact same behavior.

[Lannislight-wyrmrest-accord]

I wonder does this apply retroactively I’m on a year sub set to renew in December so i received the mount but I have heard mixed receptions / different people experiencing different things in terms of it being retroactively removed some say it’s happened some say it doesn’t happen.

I’m unsure if I want to play an additional year so I may unsub if next years rewards aren’t good, but I may change to a 6month subscription from my year sub too since it’s less pressure so I’m curious if that would effect my mount I already got.

EDIT: also of note I heard different things on how people get charged, for example I always thought you get charged when your sub is up, I can change it rn and I don’t get charged until the date its set to renew, but I have some friends who say they get charged when they change their sub despite the sub not being due to be charged until x date, which is not my experience

[Teufelgott-shadowsong (Teufelgott)]

So… $12.99/month instead of $14.99/month isn’t real savings? And then they throw in a $25 mount that I didn’t have to pay for? But I didn’t really save any money?!?

[Saángreal-moon-guard (Saángreal)]

I have no idea, but I’m wondering if we could get an official answer

[Quivermethis-rexxar]

@Bluetarski-mankrik

No.

Yes. Period.

@Bluetarski-mankrik

You can’t give people who canceled their recurring sub, the mount, while not giving it to others who did the same thing.

Sure they can. It’s their company, they can change that whenever they feel like it. It’s not a law, there is no court precedent or preceding ruling said situation.

For all we know, it’s an unintended ‘glitch’ in the automated system that people are abusing and it only catches some.

@Bluetarski-mankrik

There cannot be two sets of rules for the exact same behavior.

Which is why I said “unless blizzard puts it in writing”.

Clearly define rules/stipulations.

It can be as simple as; “Going forward, all sub cancelations prior to the 6 month cut off will result in the 6 month rewards being removed.”

[Sendryn-sentinels]

@Teufelgott-shadowsong

But I didn’t really save any money?!?

Nope. It’s “fake savings.” And we’re preying on the ignorant by perpetrating this “ruse.”

[Baridorielor-malfurion (Baridorielor)]

@Teufelgott-shadowsong

So… $12.99/month instead of $14.99/month isn’t real savings?

You missed the point here.

Real savings is not spending more money to save less money. Real savings are spending less money off the bat without needing to spend more money then you can save. As i’ve briefly explained.

@Baridorielor-malfurion

You see a game, it’s 50% off of $20, meaning you only have to pay 50% of $20. Simple as that. You don’t have to spend more money in order to see the “savings”.

Infact, the very idea of savings is to spend LESS MONEY.

What is so confusing about this fact to you?

Or are you talking about some exclusive pixel cosmetics they throw in to not make you think how much you’re spending since you’re essentially paying $80 for pixels if that’s what all it takes to get you hooked?

/sigh.

I want to keep it brief but i guess not.

Let me expand upon this then:

$77 upfront pay for 6 months, that is $12.99 per month over the coarse 6 months paid. Meaning the savings here are $2.16 per month, $13 for 6 months. That’s already an imbalanced ratio for more spending then saving here. A 80/13 spending/savings here.
Even with the exclusive pixels, the ratio for saving is still low.

With my example, $20 game, 50% off, that’s 10 bucks, you’ve saved 10 Bucks and spent only 10 bucks. The ratio here is fairly balanced between the spending and saving. 10/10 spending/savings here.

Or here, $10 game, 90% off, that’s a $1 price. You spent $1 dollar, save $9 bucks. The ratio here is in the saving’s favor, meaning you’ve saved WAY more then you’ve spent. 1/9 spending/savings here.

Or let’s say a AAA game became free. $0. … Didn’t even spend on anything and just pretty much saved any money that goes into it. 0/any spending/savings here.

…Do you guys now see my point? If you’re spending more then you’re saving on what’s advertised as “savings”, it’s fake savings. Or Bad savings if you will.

@Baridorielor-malfurion

Oh but Bari, Those Games are–

Games are infinitely replayable.

@Sendryn-sentinels

Nope. It’s “fake savings.”

I’ve explained why it’s objectively fake savings. Denying it is only foolish at this point.

@Sendryn-sentinels

And we’re preying on the ignorant by perpetrating this “ruse.”

$80 is still $80. I rather people not be tricked because somebody says their cheaper, and trying to stop them any way they can to read up all the information and do actual math to know what their getting themselves into beforehand.

[Keradax-earthen-ring]

I read it just fine.

[Quivermethis-rexxar]

@Bluetarski-mankrik

So sayeth the simp who has no idea on the legalities involved

Based on your reply, you are beyond clueless. There is no baseline precedent. They haven’t come out and said anything on the issue. For all me know, it’s 100% automated and the system is making mistakes. But go on. Please do enlighten me on the legalities and info you do have on the matter.

PS, you can’t, there is NO legal precedent here xD

And by calling people a “simp” when they disagree with you, you’ve already lost the debate/argument.

[Bluetarski-mankrik]

How are people like you so willfully ignorant of reality, yet press-on?
As stated in numerous threads, they’d already given it to people who canceled recurring subs.
It’s quite ironic that you bring up precedent while ignoring it has already been set.
I don’t have time to debate smooth-brained humans.
Bye

[Teufelgott-shadowsong (Teufelgott)]

@Baridorielor-malfurion

If you’re spending more then you’re saving on what’s advertised as “savings”, it’s fake savings. Or Bad savings if you will.

That makes literally no sense whatsoever. If I want 6 months of game time, and my options are to make 6 purchases at $14.99 each (for a total of $89.94), or make a single purchase at $77.94. That is a savings of $12. The fact that I purchase all six months at once rather than piecemeal does not diminish the value of the discount.

@Baridorielor-malfurion

Games are infinitively replayable.

@Baridorielor-malfurion

infinitively

Not the word you’re looking for.

@Baridorielor-malfurion

somebody says their cheaper

@Baridorielor-malfurion

know what their getting themselves into

In both cases, I assume you meant ‘they’re’.

Even so, your grammar is still better than your financial sense. It might be time to acknowledge that you don’t understand the concept of bulk discounts.