Blizzard's $25 Flying Pony: Milestone or Mishap?

When we wrote about the Pet Store last year, we jokingly suggested that mounts and gear might someday be for sale as well. Now that Blizzard is selling a $25 mount, what does this mean for the future?

When World of Warcraft publisher Blizzard opened its Pet Store last November, it marked a significant change in the way the company does business with its customers. By selling a couple of new (and exclusive) vanity pets in its online store, Blizzard set a precedent; for the first time in the MMO's history, players could buy in-game content in exchange for "real" money. World of Warcraft had finally adopted the micro-transaction revenue model, which naturally raised the question, "What's next?"

Among other issues, that's one of the questions we tried to tackle in our news-editorial, "What's Next, Blizzard? Mounts and Gear For Cash?", published a few days after the announcement. At the time, we were being a tad facetious; player reaction was split, with opponents fearing that Blizzard would begin selling more than just vanity pets in the days to come. Ironically, some of those claims weren't too far off-base. As we reported last week, Blizzard added the new Celestial Steed mount to its merchandise, hitting yet another milestone.

THE PRICE

The Algalon-inspired Celestial Steed is a flying/ground hybrid mount that scales with your riding skill, up to 310 percent speed if you already have a flying mount capable of that speed (check out Wowhead's Celestial Steed item page for details). Like Blizzard's other micro-transaction items, the mount binds to your account, so any of your existing or future characters can redeem it after purchase.

The mount costs $25 USD or, as ZAM's MisterBones pointed out in his original news post, the price of "dinner at The Olive Garden." But is 25 bucks too expensive for a twinkly new flying mount? As we noted in our previous editorial, even $10 for vanity pets like the Pandaren Monk or the new Lil' XT is fairly pricey, compared to relative content in other MMOs.

And what about the bigger picture? Was Blizzard's first attempt in the micro-transaction market so successful that its online store will be flooded with items by this time next year? Finally, the question is raised once again; "What's next?" With the new Battle.net marketplace for WoW and future games just around the corner, are we finally beginning to feel the consumer impact of the Activision-Blizzard merger, as opponents suggest?

Is $25 too expensive for a World of Warcraft mount? If it was, they wouldn't be selling like hotcakes. According to an article at 1UP.com (based on estimates from WoW.com, assuming neither party misinterpreted proprietary aspects of the Blizzard Store's queuing system), Blizzard sold $2 million worth of Celestial Steeds just four hours after its release. That figure comes from WoW.com's report that the Blizzard Store was queued up to 80,000 by 4:45 p.m. EDT on April 15. Less than three hours later, at 7:30 p.m. EDT, the queue was more than 140,000, according to WoW.com.

THE FUTURE

In our previous editorial, we mentioned that price points are ultimately determined by customers themselves. Like most companies, Blizzard won't release details and figures about its micro-transaction items, or the multitude of factors it used to slap the $25 price tag on the Steed, or the original $10 for vanity pets. But one of the most important factors—if not the most important—is, and always will be, customer demand.

We don't need an internal sales report to gauge that demand, either. A brief stroll in Ogrimmar, Stormwind or Dalaran is we all we need to see that players are obviously buying the special pets; by the beginning of this year, it was difficult to walk more than 100 yards without stepping on a Pandaren Monk. And even though the Celestial Steed and Lil' XT have only been out for a week, how many of them did you see on your server last weekend?

Granted, many players balk at the idea of spending $10 or $25 for an exclusive pet or mount, and the majority of WoW's player base will probably never buy one. But as long as Blizzard can turn a profit from low-risk endeavors like these—even among a small niche of customers—they're here to stay.

Is it right, though? Do exclusive items like these foster jealousy and segregation between players, as we asked in our previous editorial? Proponents of micro-transactions claim that no one is forcing you to buy anything, and as long as Blizzard only sells "vanity" items that don't affect gameplay, there's no harm in it.

We agree with that sentiment for the most part, but we've also seen plenty of backlash from MMO players when a publisher oversteps or an item store goes out-of-control. It's recently happened with EverQuest II, Allods Online and Star Trek Online, just to name a few.

Most fans agree that, despite whatever the future holds for micro-transactions in WoW, Blizzard will never sell stat-enhancing or gameplay-influencing items (not as long as it's still charging a monthly subscription, at least). The problem is that fans enjoy many different aspects of the game; some players don't care about raiding and progression, or the stat-building and gear-enhancement related to those aspects.

Some players get more fulfillment out of things like role-playing or exotic item collection, and that's what Blizzard needs to keep in mind as it eventually releases more micro-transaction content. What if Blizzard introduced exclusive Warlock demon skins in the item store, for example? Such an item wouldn't affect gameplay at all, but many players would feel they're missing out on something they should be "entitled" to without paying extra money.

That's an extreme and unrealistic example, but it helps to articulate the point; just because an item or feature doesn't affect stats or combat gameplay, that doesn't mean it isn't valuable to millions of players who already pay a monthly subscription fee.

THE "KOTICK FACTOR"

The issue of micro-transactions in World of Warcraft might be more relevant in the "bigger picture" than many Blizzard fans realize. We're not conspiracy nuts here at ZAM, and we don't indiscriminately denounce successful game developers and publishers as "sell-outs." However, there's no denying that Bobby Kotick's business strategies are running rampant throughout Blizzard today.

Kotick is the CEO and president of Activision-Blizzard, infamous among the gaming community for his quote to MTV Multiplayer, when he explained that he's not interested in supporting games that "don't have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises."

So if you're one of the millions of Blizzard fans wondering why StarCraft 2 will be released in three separate games instead of one, that's one big reason. Why release a single game when you can split it into three, especially since it's not an MMO? Sustained revenue is understandably "all the rage" these days; first-person shooters and real-time strategy games are milking gamers for every penny they can via "downloadable content" and other add-on packs.

PC gamers of the 1990s are used to this crazy concept of "free online multiplayer" when they purchase virtually anything except an MMO, otherwise the industry would have already tried to switch the paradigm, charging monthly subscriptions for all online play. ZAM readers discussed this topic, expressing frustration and discontent, when we reported that the new Battle.net won't support LAN play for SC2 and other upcoming games.

In addition to splitting games into multiple releases, Blizzard's upcoming Battle.net marketplace (announced at BlizzCon 2009) will emulate content-on-demand services like Apple's App Store, Steam or Xbox Live. Players will be able to purchase downloadable content like maps, mod packs and more for StarCraft 2 and Diablo III.

We can't blame Blizzard for being financially-innovative and wringing its games for every penny they're worth; that's just good business, as long as the quality holds. The company has to perform for its shareholders as well its fans, as we reported a couple months ago. But there's also something to be said for mutual respect and trust between a company like Blizzard and its customers, and doesn't take much to break that relationship—especially when there are so many other fish in the sea.

Comments

1 2 Next »
Post Comment
A little thing to think about
# Apr 21 2010 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
DDO switched to the "Free" mmo model with some success. Did it ever occur to anyone that Blizzard is testing the water for their own "Free" mmo model? You know they could even keep it vanity and still make a whack ton of money.
When it comes down to it I pay $15 a month. I have a friend who plays a "free" mmo and he spends usually between 20-50 bucks a month on it. He doesn't have to and most people do. But this is why the "free" model is so successful.
As WoW is the best mmo at the moment, would it not be in their interest to switch to the "free" model? How many millions of players no longer play but would if they didn't have to pay for it? How many of those would buy a mount?
This is just a theory but DDO went from bottom of the barrel to holding their own by switching to "free". Perhaps WoW could cement full dominance of the mmo industry for a decade or more with the switch.
Just something to think about.

(I use "free" because they aren't actually free. Though they cost no money to play those with money get a distinct advantage. Thus it is free to log in and play but those with money waste your time by kicking you to the curb easily for spending money. Time = money.)
A little thing to think about
# Apr 21 2010 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*
93 posts
As long as Kotick is running the show, I'd bet almost anything that WoW won't turn free-to-play until years down the road, if at all, and only if Blizzard reached the point where micro-transactions will generate more revenue than 5.5 million monthly subscription fees. Hell, isn't Mythic still charging monthly fees for Dark Age of Camelot? Considering WoW is the most popular MMO of all time, I have a really hard time imagining a scenario that earns Blizzard more money from micro-transactions than subscription fees. But I see what you're saying. A lot of upcoming MMOs are considering the free-to-play model these days, when 2 or 3 years back in their early development, their publishers never would have dreamed of it. Black Prophecy is a good example.
skins, etc
# Apr 21 2010 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
*
93 posts
Quote:
NeoJaecin: In the hypothetical example of the Warlock's demon, as long as it was just a reskin of an existing minion and didn't not add any new abilties, however if they were to provide a new pet with new abilites then yes I would have a problem as it could put those that choose not to purchase items from the store at a disadvantage.

Really? One of my characters is a Warlock, and I'd go ******* if they introduced demon skins in the Blizzard Store. I used that as an extreme example, because it's something that Warlocks have wanted for years (just like green Fel Fire). You can think of Druid skins the same way, except Blizz already gave them new skins. Anyway, while I doubt that any sort of "skins" will make their way into the store, it's just an analogy to something that doesn't affect gameplay, yet many players would deem it more inherently valuable than vanity pets, or mounts.

But at the same time, what's the incentive to buy unless the Blizzard Store items are uniquely cool? Personally, I wouldn't spend $10 for a pet, and it would take a lot more than a shimmering, star-studded pony to get me to spend 25 bucks for a mount. Now, a demon mount for my Warlock, or even better, demon-winged flight form? That I'd pay $25 for...might even spend $50 for the latter. But that's kinda my point; the line gets fuzzy when it comes to items or features like that, and it also has a lot to do with personal preference, since we all get enjoyment out of different aspects of the game. I used to work at a comic book store when I was younger, and I'll always remember a little hand-written sign that my boss kept in the back room; it read, "Remember, every comic is someone's favorite."
Meh... is there REALLY a line to cross?
# Apr 21 2010 at 6:19 PM Rating: Good
$25 is a lot cheaper than what an average joe will pay on TCG card packs hoping to find a random mount card in one of the packs.

I see nothing wrong with selling non-game enhancing items.

When MMO companies start selling "potions" and "scrolls" for real monies that up the XP percent on kills and quests that is when things start getting blurry... Do I think it is fine? Yeah. It would probably even be cheaper doing that than dual-boxing.

When MMO companies start selling gear for real cash money is when it crosees the line. Do I see a problem in it? Yeah. Will it really bother me? Probably not, because I am not worried about what someone else does. Blizzard could sell gear and if the player tried to use said gear in a BG then they would start the BG naked and unable to re-equip anything.

The game is about fun, but it is mainly about me and how I want to play at any given time... I have no time worrying about what others are doing.
Money
# Apr 21 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
It's got its ups and downs.

Vanity mounts were going for insane amounts on ebay via trading cards and opened up an avenue for scamming even if it was minimal. This provides that service and blizzard is the one making the money.


But at the same time it creeps into that kind of shameless money grab zone that is a turn off.

/meh
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Vanity but not essential.
# Apr 21 2010 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
*
162 posts
I don't think the price for the mount was too high when you consider how many, and how quickly, they managed to sell. It seems they found a pretty sweet spot in the supply and demand curves. At todays prices you could spend $25 on a movie ticket and a trip to the concession stand for a single person, and walk out without anything tangible but still completely satisfied with your purchase, provided it was a movie you enjoyed. And considering the high number of sales I don't think it could be considered a mishap either.
As long as Blizz sticks to non-essential and vanity items, I don't have a problem. In the hypothetical example of the Warlock's demon, as long as it was just a reskin of an existing minion and didn't not add any new abilties, however if they were to provide a new pet with new abilites then yes I would have a problem as it could put those that choose not to purchase items from the store at a disadvantage.
____________________________
Only the left handed are in their right mind!

Mistress Darqflame wrote:
This thread is done, thanks for playing, come again soon.

Theldurin the Lost wrote:
I said to myself, 'I'm going to punch that dragon in the face!



Vanity but not essential.
# Apr 21 2010 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
**
343 posts
I'm with Neo. As long as it's just non-essential and vanity items I don't care. As a matter of fact I'm waiting to buy one myself. Cool looking mount. But MTG had their pre-release for Eldrazi last weekend and the release party this weekend. I'm broke! LOL!
Way to go Blizz. Maybe you could kick back some of that profit to your players? Lower the monthy bill for WoW (yeah, right!).
1 2 Next »
Post Comment

Free account required to post

You must log in or create an account to post messages.