Blizzard haven't finished raping their customers' wallets just yet - by EvaUnit02
EvaUnit02 on 13/10/2008 at 15:30
On the heels of that bullshit news concerning Starcraft 2 being split into an each-sold-separately episodic trilogy, they drop (
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/13/blizzcon-pay-for-customisation-in-wow-confirmed/) this bomb.
Blizzard are taking a page out of the Asian MMO developers' manual and will start charging for "character customisation" in WoW. They'll be taking advantage of a lot people who should know better. Greedy pricks.
Quote:
When asked to expand upon a button found by sifting through the Lich King beta’s data files named “Paid Character Customization,” Brack initially hesitated to give any answer at all. Several questions later, he went back to the matter, saying that he could, in fact, confirm that World of Warcraft would eventually have some form of paid character customization, though they themselves hadn’t yet worked out any details.
Digital Nightfall on 13/10/2008 at 15:35
So... what? You give them $2 and you get a tattoo on your arm or something? What does it even mean?
Not an MMO gamer. 'scuse the ignorance.
Matthew on 13/10/2008 at 15:59
Could be Second Life style - pay to buy new hair, clothing types, all that jazz.
Digital Nightfall on 13/10/2008 at 16:02
So Blizzard is creating a supply for a demand. How is that raping anyone's wallet? Unless a player can buy a +3 Mullet of Greater Mace Wielding, I don't see how it could even be unfair.
Convince me. I am not in favor of this, I just don't think there's any argument to support the idea that this is a bad thing.
june gloom on 13/10/2008 at 16:05
So now they're taking more inspiration from Korean MMOs, which anybody who has a functioning ability to know when something isn't fun will tell you are everything that's wrong with MMOs, all in the name of some quick cash.
Blizzard are a perfect example of why gaming is going down the shitter. It's stopped being ABOUT the games anymore. It's now solely about money.
Shoshin on 13/10/2008 at 16:23
I don't quite get how this is "raping" someone's wallet. I mean, it's not like you have to buy it.
If it sucks, or costs too much money, simply don't spend the money. It's really an awesome way to exercise your power as a consumer.
WingedKagouti on 13/10/2008 at 16:32
Quote Posted by Shoshin
I don't quite get how this is "raping" someone's wallet. I mean, it's not like you have to buy it.
But if they don't buy it they won't have everything. And if you don't have everything, you're nothing! :laff:
Fringe on 13/10/2008 at 16:44
Quote Posted by Shoshin
I don't quite get how this is "raping" someone's wallet. I mean, it's not like you have to buy it.
"Wallet-raping" is a little strong. But the idea of creating and implementing content in an already-paid-for product (and in World of Warcraft's case,
continually-paid-for product), but then blocking it off from users
unless they shell out more money, is not exactly going to endear Blizzard to its consumer base.
Horse armor in Oblivion was a laughingstock for a good damned reason. This is no different.
Koki on 13/10/2008 at 16:59
As long as WoW also goes f2p, go ahead.
Yakoob on 13/10/2008 at 19:09
Holy shit, first SC2 getting split up, then the possibility of having to pay for battle.net and now this. Damn, blizzard are one sly bastards.
Quote:
I don't quite get how this is "raping" someone's wallet. I mean, it's not like you have to buy it.
If it sucks, or costs too much money, simply don't spend the money. It's really an awesome way to exercise your power as a consumer.
That is true. But I think what the OP's point was (with which I agree to a degree), is that blizz is going to charge for features that have always been traditionally free, because that's what you were paying for when you actually bought the game (and keep on paying every month in case of WoW). I understand how this can be seen as blizz stripping pretty basic features from the game and making the users pay extra for those, while making everyone else be effectively paying for an incomplete game. And when put against the history of gaming, it clearly shows as an attempt to squeeze out extra cash from the users rather than a "neccessity."
