« Fun Is What You Make It | Main | Money Money Money »

Aug 19, 2005

Comments

1.

Your cat's deficiency as a guard stems from the fact that it's a long-time catnip addict. I just slipped it a catnip mouse and within 30 seconds it was sprawled out on its back, high as a kite, and happy to let anyone in without so much as a 'meow.'

D.A.R.E to avoid drugs.

--matt

2.

While SoE's attempts are more of a recognition of the RMT economy, this is not actually condoning the RMT, but still attempting to profit from it. Meh, they're right to do it, but as you pointed out, they're walking a thin line.

Regardless, I can see this as more of a headache for Bliz than anything else, if they do plan to go through with it. Unless they plan on making these codes "unique", meaning one code for every card (a daunting task in itself), all they'll see from this is online databases popping up with lists of available codes to use. RMT piracy, anyone?

3.

Werelord wrote:

Regardless, I can see this as more of a headache for Bliz than anything else, if they do plan to go through with it. Unless they plan on making these codes "unique", meaning one code for every card (a daunting task in itself), all they'll see from this is online databases popping up with lists of available codes to use. RMT piracy, anyone?

Generating unique and reasonably unreplicatable codes is a trivial task and done all the time with registration codes for all sorts of software.

--matt

4.

Yes, generating the codes is trivial.. and has been done before.. However, if they intend to make a trading card game out of it (ala Magic the Gathering) they're dealing with a scale much larger than your typical "1 month gameplay" cards, or whats normally seen (think 10-card packs for 5 bucks, and so on)..

I just think the effort would be better used elsewhere.. but thats a bit off-topic..

5.

The use of unique codes links well with Greg's post below (http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/08/123321456787654.html), there is an old UK case about the publication of machine generated codes, from memory, it was held that the property right isowned by whoever created / owns the program, be interesting to see how 'ownable' these turn out to be, if they ever exist.

6.

One could argue that they've already done this with WoW (and other games as well). Upon launch, one could spend more money to buy a "Collector's Edition" of the game that came with additional physical goodies and also a unique in-game non-combat pet (read: cosmetic only, for non WoW players). If I remember, CoH repackaged itself as a "Collecter's Edition" to get itself renewed shelf space for the holiday season, and pre-existing players have the option of RMT purchasing the (again, cosmetic) in-game bonuses as a stand-alone from the company store. I seem to recall Guild Wars offering some sort of collector's edition/pre-order bonus too, but I don't know enough about the game to comment on whether they were actually useful items.

It'll be interesting to see exactly what form the WoW CCG bonuses take. Late in beta when they were designing the bonus items for the CE, they were very clear in soliciting suggestions that they did NOT want the in game item to have any non-cosmetic benefits. If they take the same approach here, expect some angry forum posts (as can be expected for anything anyone says ever on those forums) and a large collective "meh" from the WoW community at large. If, on the other hand, the rewards for spending the hundreds of dollars generally needed to complete a set of a CCG actually give an in-game benefit that remains relevant at end game, things could become legitimately hairy. (Don't get me wrong, there'll be angry forum posts if the CCG awards so much as a +1 Intellect headband, but the consequences of that outcry will be limited should that item require you to take off your +17 Intellect level 60 headgear to wear it.) Somehow, I suspect it'll be the cool looking but useless option, and they just don't want to kill sales of their licensed product by admitting that in as many words.

7.

So will it be bannable if you buy/sell/trade these TRADING cards as well? Seems to me it would have to be if they are going to follow their hardline policies. Their logic is almost laughable if it wasn't so damn pathetic.

8.

This is more than a rumor, its been up on Upperdeck for a while now.
http://www.upperdeckentertainment.com/wow/

If anyone is looking for a supplier for these, let me know, I still have connections from back in my Pokemon days.

-bruce

9.

The profit margin on virtual swords is... huge. The cost to manufacture is low. The cost of distribution is low. Little research & development required to create a new product. Monopoly market with zero other competing virtual sword manufactures. And if costs are getting too high, they can always open an offshore sweatshop to crank out the high-volume low quality virtual gear.

Plus, they can conrol demand! want to kill that oh-so-special silver/black/purple/mauve dragon? Well the only weapon that can do it is the glowing vorpal blade of moneygrabbing- now available with this special offer! The possibilities are endless. The only open question is in how pure a form the addicts will accept their drug in.

10.

It seems to me someone could make some real money buying the cards in bulk, sifting through the packs for the good ones, and then selling those online.

11.

Green Armadillo wrote:

but I don't know enough about the game to comment on whether they were actually useful items.

If players want them, they're useful. Just because they don't boost a stat and make you more l33t doesn't mean they aren't useful. Looking cool raises your social capital in that environment and is one example of usefulness that doesn't depend on coded stats.

--matt

12.

I applaud Blizzard for their nobility in not overtly selling items to players for money. I also applaud them for making a very poor MMORPG by designing it only to be a commercial success.

13.

Upper Deck is looking at having special silver foil cards in packs that once scratched off, like a lottery ticket, could reveal a special code

wouldn't this just open up another market for "silver cards" on sites like IGE? it sounds like blizzard is starting to lose focus and is taking a step in the wrong direction.

add special appearance alterations/changes, to online player characters

this statement along with the recent amounts in 1.7 patch notes and the preview of the dressing room seriously scare me. i didn't buy World of Warcraft to play dress-up. i do applaud blizzard for thinking up another way (the CCG) to cash in on World of Warcraft because obviously that is all this move is intended to do. obviously the dressing room addition to World of Warcraft makes lots more sense now. what better way to sell a product then to let players know how cool they would look if they had the [Pants of Uberness] that only can be found when scratching off a silver foil card.

14.

Since all the "virtual stuff" in the World of Warcraft belongs to Blizzard, are they really selling it or just lending it to you?

15.

I think the vast majority of the strife over RMT comes from the perception that it's giving the people who spend money an unfair competitive advantage over those that don't. In Furcadia all our items are cosmetic only, and there's far less scandal and controversy over it. (Mostly arguments over someone scamming somebody else out of an item.) I believe that Dreamscape (the latest reincarnation of the venerable Habitat) has been selling cosmetic-only items even longer than we have, and I never heard of any big fuss over that. (They're at www.vzones.com if anyone's curious.) So I think there'll be no real controversy over Blizzard letting someone who's already paying them $180 a year or so toss in a few more bucks to have a prettier hat than the next guy.

16.

Hey, you clearly have opinions about games. Put them to work for you, post game reviews and get the chance to win new games...

Visit LovetoKnow Video Games and start posting your reviews today.
LovetoKnow Video Games

The comments to this entry are closed.