They've finally done it...

[Swerto]

Lil’ K.T., the Littlest Lich
Lil’ K.T. is a miniature lich who bears a striking resemblance to the legendary lord of Naxxramas, Kel’Thuzad. But don’t let his diminutive stature fool you: Lil’ K.T. has a diabolical laugh and wields true power at his bony fingertips, randomly wreaking icy havoc on critters who dare to cross his path. You can now buy this new pet for $10 on the Blizzard Store. (http://us.blizzard.com/store/ )

In order to receive a purchased pet, you’ll need to merge your World of Warcraft account with a Battle.net account. For more information on Battle.net, please visit the FAQ. ( https://us.battle.net/faq/index.html ) For more information on the new Pet Store, visit the Pet Store FAQ. ( http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=29845 )Blizzard is offering an in game item for real money, this is the first time it's just a purchase on the store with nothing else given to you. In the past the only in game items you could get with money came with something else, like a blizzcon ticket or a collectors edition.

This is very different from the Pandoran monk purchase, which is for charity.


Make a Difference: Pandaren Monk Charity Pet
Enter the Pandaren Monk, ( http://us.blizzard.com/store/details.xml?id=1100000763 ) a martial-arts expert who’s here to help celebrate the upcoming fifth anniversary of World of Warcraft. He may be cute, but he’s proof that even the softest of critters can overcome the hardest of circumstances. For every Pandaren Monk that finds its way to a player’s side between now and the end of the year (December 31, 2009 at 11:59 PDT), we’ll donate 50 percent of the $10 purchasing price to the Make-a-Wish Foundation in an effort to brew up a little hope, strength, and joy in a child’s life.

[Rethius]

You pay real money to stare at flashing lights for hours on end.


Don't hand me this.

[Swerto]

Yes, but until this point in time there was no way to purchase in game items outside of the game, unless those items came with something else blizzard was selling.

Until this point Blizzard has only charged for services.

[Broxigan]

You pay real money to stare at flashing lights for hours on end.


Don't hand me this.

But now you are paying money to pay money to see the flashing lights. That's the part thats a little fucked up for a non-combat pet that...does...nothing.

[Rethius]

But now you are paying money to pay money to see the flashing lights. That's the part thats a little fucked up for a non-combat pet that...does...nothing.

Well, if someone wants a little blue and white flashing light to follow the flashing light THEY made.


That is their business. I am happy with my current set of flashing lights, tbh.

[Swerto]

What this is, is a step towards blizzard offering a way to purchase gold in game, or epics... via real money.

Watch the first legendary in Cataclsym cost $200 in real life.

[Rethius]

Eventually, they'll sell fresh air.

[Fhenrir]

I was just talking to a friend about this earlier. I find it ridiculous that they're still pocketing half of the 10 dollars from every one of the charity pets sold. I mean, really? They need that 5 dollar profit per pixel man?

[Akuje]

My birthday is Saturday, I expect a code for each of these pets.

[Grayslin]

WoW was pretty much one of the last holdouts among its generation of MMO's on this front; it's not terribly surprising.

Like it or not, silly or not, RMT and Micropayments are where the MMO industry is headed. Look at the re-vamped DDO, or Free Realms and Wizard 101. Then there's the item store for EQ2. Developers (or more importantly publishers) have figured out that people will pay for this stuff, so you bet your ass they're going to do it.

[Swerto]

Everyone who buys one of these, is a giant tool.


Just give your $10 straight to charity.

[Taknar]

I like pandas. This will get me a panda. Honestly, I am for more stuff like this rather than a grind. I have more money than I do time.

[Taknar]

Everyone who buys one of these, is a giant tool.


Just give your $10 straight to charity.


But then I get no panda. See the issue here? Panda.

[Grev]

What this is, is a step towards blizzard offering a way to purchase gold in game, or epics... via real money.

Watch the first legendary in Cataclsym cost $200 in real life.
That's a pretty big leap to be making. I think you're overreacting.

Let's look at this from a business perspective. What's going to generate more money in the long run? Offering gear for sale at a static price or making you pay $15 a month to obtain that gear for X amount of months. The time sink will always make the most money.

A legendary at $200? Okay, let's say it takes a 25 man raid to obtain that legendary which could take several months. Let's say two months. In a two month period that is $750 compared to $200.

I don't think Blizzard is going to venture outside of selling vanity and cosmetic items. They won't tamper with actual progression, it doesn't make business sense. I personally don't see anything wrong with selling non-combat pets or silly clothing.

[Rand_Shea]

I questioned why they didn't do stuff like this sooner. They could sell special in game mounts and make MAD amounts of cash.

And mini-Kel'THuzad will be worth it if they change the tone and speed of his voice quotes so that he sounds like Speedy Gonzales.

[Amoola]

I really don't see the issue. One item gives money to charity, seriously if half the playing population bought a panda despite only half the money going to said charity that is a lot of freaking money. One item is pure profit, so what. A company will do what they do. You aren't being forced to buy a pet. If it is you cup of tea to do then do it. If it isn't your cup of tea then ignore it.

When I have some money I will get a panda. I love pandaren and wish they were in game somehow in a visible form. I also like the make a wish folks so win win. As it stands schools and other groups (boy scouts, girl scouts..... etc) sell things where they keep a cut of the money. This is no different.

[Swerto]

But then I get no panda. See the issue here? Panda.
You're still a tool.



That's a pretty big leap to be making. I think you're overreacting.

Let's look at this from a business perspective. What's going to generate more money in the long run? Offering gear for sale at a static price or making you pay $15 a month to obtain that gear for X amount of months. The time sink will always make the most money.

A legendary at $200? Okay, let's say it takes a 25 man raid to obtain that legendary which could take several months. Let's say two months. In a two month period that is $750 compared to $200

See, this is where you are wrong. I am not overreacting, blizzard has stood up and made a game that doesn't favor people who are richer in real life. If blizzard were to offer money to buy gear from outside of game, that is what this would do.

This is a step in that direction.

Also, your math is off, you're forgetting that during those months you don't do nothing but bust your ass for that legendary, considering all current legendaries are straight up drops.

[Rand_Shea]

I'd finally make an undead character and get that mini-Kel'Thuzad. Probably a mage, and I'd run around newbie zones waiting for it to proc a mini-blizzard on low level mobs and critters and make a macro to say something ridiculous as my char does the same.

It'll be like Doctor Evil and Mini-Me.

[Grev]

Blizzard's objective for rich players is the same for any other player, keep them in the game. Giving them instant rewards isn't going to keep anyone playing for a long period of time. Those players would pay out of their ass for the best gear, and then what? What motivation is there for them to keep playing? They might hang around for a month or so to flaunt their shiny new epics, but there is really nothing left to keep them playing when the time sink has been taken away from them.

Gear for money sounds like a great short term investment, which is why you see dying MMOs clinging to that business strategy. They want to make as much money as possible before their product tanks. Blizzard is in an entirely different situation. They have a franchise that they need to keep expanding and keep people interested in until they're ready for WoW 2, or whatever direction they decide to go next.

You keep people interested in that brand by keeping them around for the long haul. Offering gear for cash defeats the whole purpose of farming a raid for months at a time. You don't want players prepared for the next level of difficulty overnight. You want them to gradually reach that point by grinding and investing time.

Blizzard is way too smart to go the route you're proposing and realistically they have no need to go that route. They're not hurting for money and I can't see them taking a risk of that proportion, which could potentially damage their brand, just to earn some quick cash.

I think when you read the headline: "Blizzard headed for bankruptcy", right under "The sky is falling", you can count on a pay-for-progression system out of WoW.

[Lysimachus]

What this is, is a step towards blizzard offering a way to purchase gold in game, or epics... via real money.

Watch the first legendary in Cataclsym cost $200 in real life.


You might consider reading the last paragraph of the Pet Store FAQ. (http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=29845)

[Sabachthan]

Finally an in-game litmus test to avoid gaming with the poor or frugal.

[Nymare]

How is this very different from paying extra for an expansion to get the special pet that comes with it?

[Yichimet]

Finally an in-game litmus test to avoid gaming with the poor or frugal.

LMAO. I no longer have to feel dirty slumming with the working class...

[Grev]

And if $10 breaks anyone's bank account they should probably re-evaluate their budget and remove WoW from their monthly expenditures altogether.

[Rethius]

Finally an in-game litmus test to avoid gaming with the poor or frugal.

My monthly cable bill is higher.


... I don't even watch T.V.

[Akuje]

You might consider reading the last paragraph of the Pet Store FAQ. (http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=29845)

But, anything that goes against his emotional tyrants are invalid and can not be used as evidence.

[Irontoe]

You might consider reading the last paragraph of the Pet Store FAQ. (http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=29845)

Beat me to it.

[Qabian]

It's no different from buying cards to get the loot cards, either. Not that I know anyone who's done that. *cough* They've been "selling" cosmetic in-game stuff for a long time now. If they start selling stuff that actually impacts your game in any way whatsoever, I'd like to hear how that doom and gloom goes over.

[Fhenrir]

To be fair, the paid race changes do impact gameplay. For better or worse, racials can play an important part in min/maxing character for either PvP or PvE, and I've heard of several examples of race swaps made to better accommodate play in said areas. If there was something foreshadowing Blizzard selling ingame benefits for real money, I'd argue race change way before mini pets.


Personally I still think it's really tacky that the limited time charity is only 50% on the panda. Amoola mentioned that girl scouts do something similar, but the difference is that they are selling a real commodity and doing so with significant time/effort invested. Blizzard is selling a little pixel man that presumably takes no more than a few clicks to gift to every purchase.

[Qabian]

That's true, although technically there's nothing stopping the poor from rerolling to the race they want for "free"/subscription money. The proletariat just have to earn the things they want instead of putting it on their credit cards. What they're selling in that case is time spent, really, and maybe history of things that can't be repeated, but it's not really a unique game affecting something only obtainable through money.

They definitely do have the tacky going with micropayments for all the other things, name changes, transfers, etc., and the charity sure (because that $5 is going to the panda's designers and programmers, sure, ha!), but they're giving people what they want, and it works. Money could be used to purchase the RAF cosmetic stuff, too. This isn't new. It's just... more direct.

[Lysimachus]

And if $10 breaks anyone's bank account they should probably re-evaluate their budget and remove WoW from their monthly expenditures altogether.

It's not that 10 dollars would break most people's banks, but the consistent spending of 10 dollars on many useless amenities (like a pet in a game) (which is why I won't be buying the smecksy KT doll, because I have RESTRAINT [runs to hunt for change in the couch])

[Swerto]

Years ago Blizzard would have said they would never do this.


It is a step in that direction


Until now Blizzard only charged for services, and games. Now they are charging for in game items.

[Nymare]

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/news/images/04-11/pets.jpg

No, really, what's the difference? Yes, you get other crap in addition to an in-game item, but you cannot get these in-game items without paying for a collector's edition.

Nevermind all the CCG stuff.

[Qabian]

I am extremely tempted to buy them for Swerto, since I see there is a "gift it" option.

[Swerto]

Collectors editions, trading card, games, etc. etc. All are purchases that just happen to INCLUDE the pet, like the blizzcon ticket. They are not just the pet purchase.

When you buy the cards you have trading cards to play with (yeah weak example)

When you buy the collectors edition you get a cool art book, and other cool stuff.

When you buy a blizzcon ticket you go to blizzcon.

They just package iin those lovely pets for the hell of it.

When you purchase transfers and such they are simple services, just like the service you already pay for.

What -this- is, is a straight up purchase of an in game item. This doesn't meean they'll automatically go to epic weapon purchases, but it's a step in that direction. While I'm not angered by this exact example, I am cautious.


I am extremely tempted to buy them for Swerto, since I see there is a "gift it" option.


Yes, please, spite me.

[Qabian]

I'd only do it if it forced you to carry them around visible on all your characters all the time anyway. It's not really a very effective spite gift.

[Nymare]

I dunno. That's still not good enough, in my mind, to make such a huge and dramatic distinction since I haven't bought any of that stuff and so I do not have the pets. So, to me, you're still paying for the pet - not that the pet is the entirety of the cost of the ticket or collector's edition, but there is still a price being paid to have the pet/mount/tabard/costume/<in game item> at all.

Thus, my "OMG DOOM" factor is left at a relatively low level.

As for the pandaren pet, the bright side to it is considering how many people are buying the pet for the pet v. how many people are buying it for charity. I am willing to wager that a good deal of those pets aren't being bought to fuel the wishes of the sick and dying, so that's still money going to charity which may never have gone there to begin with.

[Swerto]

So the only reason to buy a ticket to blizzcon is for... the vanity pet?

The only reason to buy the collectors edition of Warcraft (which comes with a lot of cool shit) is for the... vanity pet?


I'll give you the card game... because I laughed when my dad bought a deck of it wanting a mount.

[Nymare]

You'll have to point out in my post where I said that.

[Lysimachus]

I really don't see anything wrong with it. We live in (or at least Blizzard is headquartered in) a capitalist country, every for-profit company does whatever they can for-profit, without (usually and hopefully) infringing on the fundamental appeal of the product.

[Sejarki]

$10 seems a little pricey.

[Ryoku]

That's true, although technically there's nothing stopping the poor from rerolling to the race they want for "free"/subscription money.

Most people who min/max invest a lot of time in their characters. Many are not going to take the time / money to make a new character. By the time they regear them to where they were they'd possibly lose more money from subscription fees than if they had actually just bought it, and definately lose more time.

This way makes it much easier for your srs gamer to drop 30 bucks for fotm race.

As far as pets. Meh. I don't care much for them anyways. Let people do what they'll do with their money.

[Grev]

The only reason to buy the collectors edition of Warcraft (which comes with a lot of cool shit) is for the... vanity pet?
Yes, because you sell the vanity pet on eBay a month later and reimburse yourself the money spent on the CE. I made $200 off DirectTV's PPV broadcast of Blizzcon 2007 by selling the murloc pet.

[Swerto]

People are stupid.

[Rethius]

Totally.

[Rand_Shea]

Well, I'll definitely put some money towards whatever Blizzard event there is that comes with a pet and resell it for a profit.

People are stupid, yes, but stupid people often have money to burn.

[Viirchi]

Selling in game pets for real money. I fail to see this as a problem unless somehow Blizzard is using the money to fund their evil plans of world domination via some fantastic moon death ray. So long as they are making money off stuff like this they're less likely to abandon the game and I can keep playing like the hopeless addict that I am.

For people who want to drop down $10 for a collection of shiny pixels that follow you around more power too them. I really don't think it says you're a tool, more that you are attracted to shiny things on your computer.

[Yatokth]

Totally.

I lol'd.

[Lysimachus]

Whatever, I want it because it freezes critters and cackles maniacally when you kill other players. Um, WIN?

[Yatokth]

Whatever, I want it because it freezes critters and cackles maniacally when you kill other players. Um, WIN?

It DOES?

FUCK I'M BUYING THIS SHIT.

[Viirchi]

Whatever, I want it because it freezes critters and cackles maniacally when you kill other players. Um, WIN?

It does that? O.O *finally checks out link*

[Swerto]

Totally.
You're jealous of my red text.

[Ironskull]

Zanzir Cobbleboom would be disappointed!

This is a wonderful thing for everyone involved:

1. Blizzard. Blizzard has a service that costs very little to them (a bit of programming time) and returns much more money.

2. Pet owners. Some people like to collect pets in game. Those that buy it are obviously happy because they'd rather have the pet than the money they spent.

3. Non-pet owning WoW players. These are people who don't want to spend money for pets. They don't have to. But more importantly, because blizzard is making a lot of money off of group 2 ,they will then take that money and reinvest it in WoW, or Starcraft 2 or their next MMORPG which will come out faster, be better, or more accessible because of that extra cash. Even if Blizzard pockets the money in profits that just gives other computer companies incentive to do what Blizzard does, namely make excellent games.

The only stupid people are those who are trying to tell other people would they should or should not be spending their money on. This entire set of transactions are free, voluntary, and, therefore, beneficial to everyone involved. Most impressively, it helps those that aren't involved as well. The only real problem is the charity this money appears to be going to... I'd appreciate it if Blizzard stuck to making video games and didn't doll out their money to charities they don't know much about.

[Rethius]

The only stupid people are those who are trying to tell other people would they should or should not be spending their money on..

Luckily for us, we don't have anyone like that here.

[Lysimachus]

Zanzir Cobbleboom would be disappointed!

This is a wonderful thing for everyone involved:

1. Blizzard. Blizzard has a service that costs very little to them (a bit of programming time) and returns much more money.

2. Pet owners. Some people like to collect pets in game. Those that buy it are obviously happy because they'd rather have the pet than the money they spent.

3. Non-pet owning WoW players. These are people who don't want to spend money for pets. They don't have to. But more importantly, because blizzard is making a lot of money off of group 2 ,they will then take that money and reinvest it in WoW, or Starcraft 2 or their next MMORPG which will come out faster, be better, or more accessible because of that extra cash. Even if Blizzard pockets the money in profits that just gives other computer companies incentive to do what Blizzard does, namely make excellent games.

The only stupid people are those who are trying to tell other people would they should or should not be spending their money on. This entire set of transactions are free, voluntary, and, therefore, beneficial to everyone involved. Most impressively, it helps those that aren't involved as well. The only real problem is the charity this money appears to be going to... I'd appreciate it if Blizzard stuck to making video games and didn't doll out their money to charities they don't know much about.

Quoted for truth, my good sir!

[Sejarki]

I'd appreciate it if Blizzard stuck to making video games and didn't doll out their money to charities they don't know much about.

http://www.wow.com/2007/05/22/blizzard-and-make-a-wish-bringing-wow-to-life/

They've had some involvement with the organization in the past, which is why I assume they chose the group.

[Ryoku]

Zanzir Cobbleboom would be disappointed!

This is a wonderful thing for everyone involved:

1. Blizzard. Blizzard has a service that costs very little to them (a bit of programming time) and returns much more money.

2. Pet owners. Some people like to collect pets in game. Those that buy it are obviously happy because they'd rather have the pet than the money they spent.

3. Non-pet owning WoW players. These are people who don't want to spend money for pets. They don't have to. But more importantly, because blizzard is making a lot of money off of group 2 ,they will then take that money and reinvest it in WoW, or Starcraft 2 or their next MMORPG which will come out faster, be better, or more accessible because of that extra cash. Even if Blizzard pockets the money in profits that just gives other computer companies incentive to do what Blizzard does, namely make excellent games.

The only stupid people are those who are trying to tell other people would they should or should not be spending their money on. This entire set of transactions are free, voluntary, and, therefore, beneficial to everyone involved. Most impressively, it helps those that aren't involved as well. The only real problem is the charity this money appears to be going to... I'd appreciate it if Blizzard stuck to making video games and didn't doll out their money to charities they don't know much about.

Quoted for truth, my good sir!

And make it double.

[Rand_Shea]

Whatever, I want it because it freezes critters and cackles maniacally when you kill other players. Um, WIN?

And that is what makes it awesome.

Only instead of Kel'Thuzad's maniac cackle from the instance, I want it to be more like an "Hehehe.. Hehehe! EEE HEE HEE HEE!".

It should do something when you take it close to Mr. Bigglesworth... It'd be hilarious if the cat jumped on and mauled him.

[Chind]

It has no impact on gameplay, there is very little reason to worry, whine, bitch, moan, divine, complain. In beige text OR red text.

I have no plans on purchasing either of these pets, primarily because I think vanity pets are a waste of time.

Then again, I haven't logged on to wow in over a week, so I'm not sure if I really care.

[Alphaeus]

The MMO I played before WoW charged money for a currency to use in their web-store, which, in turn, you could use to purchase costumes and accessories to dress your character up and hide your leveling gear.

The only diabolical part there was that the amount of currency required to buy the sets tended to be slightly more than a single purchase of currency. So it was the hotdogs to hotdog buns issue. Let the extras go to waste? Buy more to use them up? But then you have extras again....

I was totally a Kitty-eared maid-dress wearing warrior with spy accessories.

WTB awesome cosmetic clothes to hide my ugly tier. PST w/price.

[Jeedup]

What this is, is a step towards blizzard offering a way to purchase gold in game, or epics... via real money.

Watch the first legendary in Cataclsym cost $200 in real life.


How exactly are you making this leap?

Sure, recently, Blizzard is making some changes that go against their usual terms of operation, but none of them have been horribly ground breaking.

How can you link buying gold and epics to purchasing a in game companion pet that doesnt do ANYTHING other than make nerds squee in glee, and spending money on CHARITY for another.

Say wha?

[Jeedup]

LOL at myself for not bothering to even check if there were any posts past Swerto orginal starter. Hah I say.

[Gorymoru]

@swerto

lolumad?

mad cuz bad.



/thread

[Vyn]

...

I'd sell one of my nuts for mini diablo, ok? That's about the only thing that I would buy from blizz.

Well, that and the tabard from the ccg. And maybe mini KT. And I really like pandas. And I ground out my penguin on my deathknight, and got my Wolvarr. How about a gnome pet? Yeah, I'd buy that. Hmm...and the murloc pet? It's cool. I like the murloc costume, I'd totally sell my other nut for that.

Huh. I'm a tool.

[Taknar]

Just to stir up the conversation a bit, I think that if there were a fair and measurable way to convert hours spent not playing the game into a currency where you could buy BoE or BoP items that I would be behind it. Think of it as rested exp for end-game. If such a feature were available, would you use it? I think I would.

Also, if as a side effect for each in game item you get using the converted non-plaayed hours Blizzard gave a goldfish to a poor kid would it make you a tool for using it?


Huh. I'm a tool.

Yay tools!

[Okhu]

I'd be pretty happy if I didn't have to buy their card game for those promotionals without having to go to Ebay.

Same with Blizzcon promos.

[Irontoe]

Just to stir up the conversation a bit, I think that if there were a fair and measurable way to convert hours spent not playing the game into a currency where you could buy BoE or BoP items that I would be behind it.

Reward people for doing absolutely nothing? While it would be the next logical step in Blizzard's design... no, thanks.

[Lisbet]

Swerto -


Does this mean you'll be introducing more services like this in the future? Will you be introducing the ability to buy epic weapons/etc. in the future, for example?

As with the pets, mounts, and other items players can obtain through Loot cards from the World of Warcraft Trading Card Game, Pet Store pets are purely cosmetic and just for fun. Like other paid services we offer, such as Paid Name Changes, Race Changes, and Character Re-Customizations, the Pet Store service is entirely optional and intended to provide players another means to enjoy World of Warcraft in a way that isn't detrimental to the game and that doesn't detract from the gameplay experience for players who choose not to use the service.



Blizzard has absolutely zero intention ever to sell you a Shadowmourn.

Also?


The only reason to buy the collectors edition of Warcraft (which comes with a lot of cool shit) is for the... vanity pet?


YES SWERTO, THIS IS WHY PEOPLE PAY UPWARDS OF THIRTY EXTRA DOLLARS FOR THEIR FIFTY DOLLAR EXPANSION. FOR THE COOL UNIQUE VANITY PET.

People pay 2-300$, sometimes upwards of 1000$ for the trading card stuff.



I wonder if I send 50$ they'll upgrade my lil' KT and he can kill players for me instead of just cackling at them...!

[Broxigan]

Blizzard has absolutely zero intention ever to sell you a Shadowmourn.


To be fair, they always said they would NEVER allow PVE to PVP server transfers. Or race changes. Or faction changes. Or creating a character of both factions on the same PVP server.

I could forsee Blizzard selling Heirlooms in the future. And mounts.

I put nothing past them anymore.

[Heidenreich]

I could forsee Blizzard selling Heirlooms in the future. And mounts.


This I can see. I don't actually see selling of purplez and orangez though.

[Cristok]

I would be willing to recieve either of these pets as a gift. Please make note.

[Faeriel]

As has already been stated, this isn't a step towards selling legendary items, and Swerto, stop being dumb.

It actually makes a lot of sense for Blizzard to do this, as it's part of the evolution of their product. One of the interesting things about WoW is seeing how Blizzard has managed to maintain the core, time-consuming elements of MMO gameplay, and supplement them to maintain a mass-market appeal. Race changes, faction transfers, all of these services let Blizzard make money while allowing people to be get more flexibility and value from their time investment. They still have to make the time investment though, which gives Blizzard more money.

So yeah, the pet store is a great way for them to make even more money with minimal effort (since they already have all the backend programming for adding pets to BattleNET accounts), and add further value for people who want to play the game a lot, without affecting anything that might cause people to play the game less.

[Swerto]

As has already been stated, this isn't a step towards selling legendary items, and Swerto, stop being dumb.




Swerto's guide to Internet Arguments

Here we go, presenting Swerto's guide to internet arguments!

Many of you are not very good at these discussions of wit and extreme importance on this 'internet'.

So here is Swerto's new guide to winning the internet argument age!

It seems you have grasp of the first rule already!


Rule 1: Insult the person you are arguing with.

It is no small fact that when you discredit your opponent by calling them an idiot or insulting them you are taking your first step towards victory! People will look at you with respect, for only one with as much taste as you could ever be able to do such a thing. Remember: Calling your opponent a kid is the quickest way to achieve this, nobody respects children.

Rule 2: Pull random statistics out of your ass.

Everyone knows that statistics enhance every argument in the world. Even if you are wrong, throwing in a statistic will obviously make your argument the better. Remember: The objective is not to be right, but to win!

Rule 3: Never give up.

It is no small fact that the internet is a very important place. If you cannot win an argument on the internet you are obviously a failue of a human being and should go end your life immediately. Take your stance on the internet and never back down, let your opponent know that you are right, even if you are wrong! Remember: People respect charisma, it obviously takes a lot of it to take your stand on the internet.

Rule 4: If it looks like you're going to lose, change the subject.

Take note, even for you pathetic excuses for human beings there is hope. If you cannot win the fabled internet argument you can always avoid loss by changing the subject. People are idiots, and will completely forget they were arguing in the first place. Use a popular segway like 'So how about them yankees'. Remember: If they forget you were arguing, you win anyways.

Rule 5: If you lose, throw a fit.

Ah, for those of you who cannot win, or change the subject, first of all you need to plan for you imminent suicide. Next I suggest you throw a huge fit, for the opponent obviously cheated. Call them out and blame them for all your problems in life, cite health issues you've been having in the real world and the adverse effect the internet has had on them (even if you have had no such health issues). Rage quit the boards, many more are sure to join you because you are such an important person. Remember: Suicide is painless.

[Rand_Shea]

Ok... Swerto had it coming the first few posts, but seriously, it's been almost a day since his last one, so shut the hell up with the sniping and get back on topic.

Want to see an example of a 'tool'? Look in the fucking mirror. Kthxbai come back when you can actually DISCUSS the topic.

...anyway...

Again, I'm not surprised that any of this has been implemented. I was wondering why they hadn't considered or capitalized on it sooner, especially with the way that things like Spectral Tiger are selling on ebay? Seriously.... $650 at cheapest for a translucent tiger mount that sparkles. $1050 was the highest bid I saw as of 3 days ago.

Tyriel pet is going for about $400 last I saw, as well.

Blizzard could easily make more spectral mounts and sell them for $100 a piece or even as little as $50 and would make mad amounts of money. To keep the TGC still sought after, the current spectral tiger could maintain its u niqueness in the color it has, the sparkling, and maybe give players a unique title.

I also don't see the problem with it. I think it'd be a GREAT idea for them to do it and like the Pandaren pet donate 50% of all profits to charity. People are going to spend their money on useless in game items, they might as well make some extra cash and help out Make-A-Wish to give another terminally ill child a dream vacation or whatever it is their heart desires.

And yeah, I would be one that would "waste money" on an ingame thing like a shiny mount if $25 of my $50 was going to a charity. I donated $2 to a breast cancer charity at the grocery store and they gave me a couple of sugar cookies as a thanks. I was happy, shared a cookie with the friend I was with, and the charity got some money in exchange for $.50 of their profit going towards the cookie box they bought... no one was complaining.

No, it's not always a bad thing to get something for giving something.

[Swerto]

At first I had a problem with the Pandoran then I realized it was no different than the collectors edition, just instead of buying a product you were buying a 'feel better for yourself' card because you donated to charity.

Little KT still bugs me, but then again I was never throwing a fit because vanity pets, I was simply pointing out this is a direction towards selling other in game things, and I am cautious because if they take further steps in that direction it -will- bother me.

[Okhu]

You don't need to buy it. So I don't see why it would bother you.

[Necroxis]

Slippery Slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)

[Swerto]

Hardly taking the slippery slope stance.

I am merely stating this is a step in that direction. Like I said, my problem is not with the pets.

[Agnarr]

Anyone wanna buy a Blizzcon 2009 pet?

[Necroxis]

What this is, is a step towards blizzard offering a way to purchase gold in game, or epics... via real money.

Watch the first legendary in Cataclsym cost $200 in real life.



A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.

Exact same thing.

[Jeedup]

..Swerto giving advice on arguements...thats rich.

And chock full of ridiculas sarcasm! YUMMY!

[Swerto]

Exact same thing.
Incorrect, I am in no way claiming this will mean that will happen. I simply stated it is a step in that direction, and therefore I am cautious. If I were taking the slippery slope stance I would be stating this automatically means that will happen.

[Fhenrir]

Exact same thing.

To be fair, the statement regarding the Legendary was most likely exaggerated sarcasm for the sake of humor rather than an attempt at flawless prediction. Especially when you consider that he already clarified that he doesn't believe it is inevitable, but something he's become particularly wary of after the opening of the pet store. Which I personally agree with; I'm going to be watching Blizzard a bit more carefully myself.

Edit: See above

[Necroxis]

LOL at myself for not bothering to even check if there were any posts past Swerto orginal starter. Hah I say.

Pretty much this.

[Faeriel]

Swerto's guide to Internet Arguments

I'm impressed that you managed to practice 3, 4, & 5, in the very same post. Nicely done.

[Akuje]

Also, that isn't Swerto's rules. Google search's return the exact thing. Keep going so I have a chance to use some other fun laws.

[Gorvena]

*waits patiently for some tool to use the Special Olympics analogy*

[Agnarr]

*waits patiently for some tool to use the Special Olympics analogy*

On behalf of Black and Decker, I am offended, sir.

[Gorvena]

Table saws?

[Akuje]

Goldwin's Law if you are going to start that shit up...

[Sabachthan]

Swerto, you tool, reading online is about 25% slower (http://www.workz.com/content/view_content.html?section_id=482&content_id=6674) than reading from print and it's a lot harder on the eyes. If you can't understand that red text on a dark gray background is a poor choice of font, then you don't belong on the internet. Fully three quarters of Internet users who choose red font -- even on white backgrounds -- contract syphilis within two weeks. You probably gave it to them. I refuse to acknowledge your weak internet presence. I am leaving this thread and never coming back again! Never again! You hear me?!

So, how about that Lil' KT pet? I hear the cackling is hilarious.

[Skaadvik]

I donated $2 to a breast cancer charity at the grocery store and they gave me a couple of sugar cookies as a thanks. I was happy, shared a cookie with the friend I was with, and the charity got some money in exchange for $.50 of their profit going towards the cookie box they bought... no one was complaining.

No, it's not always a bad thing to get something for giving something.

I did the same, and I got a peanut butter cookie and I got to write my name on a pair of cute paper circles ("boobies" as the nice lady behind the counter called them), so now everyone who checks out at Safeway Oaken Keg sees "Forrest Andresen loves boobies!"

Best $2 I have spent recently.

[Rand_Shea]

I got one of those sugar cookies with pink frosting.

...there must be drugs in them because I just bought a whole box more of them.

AND I donated more today.

BUT I HAVE COOKIES NOM NOM NOM

[Swerto]

Swerto, you tool, reading online is about 25% slower (http://www.workz.com/content/view_content.html?section_id=482&content_id=6674) than reading from print and it's a lot harder on the eyes. If you can't understand that red text on a dark gray background is a poor choice of font, then you don't belong on the internet. Fully three quarters of Internet users who choose red font -- even on white backgrounds -- contract syphilis within two weeks. You probably gave it to them. I refuse to acknowledge your weak internet presence. I am leaving this thread and never coming back again! Never again! You hear me?!

So, how about that Lil' KT pet? I hear the cackling is hilarious.
You have just earned my respect Sab.


Don't lose it again in the near future.

[Ryoku]

I did the same, and I got a peanut butter cookie and I got to write my name on a pair of cute paper circles ("boobies" as the nice lady behind the counter called them), so now everyone who checks out at Safeway Oaken Keg sees "Forrest Andresen loves boobies!"

Best $2 I have spent recently.

Forrest?

[Rand_Shea]

*waits patiently for some tool to use the Special Olympics analogy*

You may as well just have.

[Irontoe]

Incorrect, I am in no way claiming this will mean that will happen. I simply stated it is a step in that direction, and therefore I am cautious. If I were taking the slippery slope stance I would be stating this automatically means that will happen.

Swerto is 100% right in this case. Necroxis, you quoted the definition and still got it wrong.

[Svetlaena]

Swerto is 100% right in this case. Necroxis, you quoted the definition and still got it wrong.

The world turning upside-down, ITT.

[Irontoe]

Rule 1: Insult the person you are arguing with.

Swerto is right AGAIN?

He's burning through his quota for the month.

[Necroxis]

The world turning upside-down, ITT.

I know, srsly.

I admit I didn't read what he said more carefully and was wrong, big deal. At least I'm not one of those douches who refuses to do so :)


Swerto is right AGAIN?

He's burning through his quota for them month.

World is coming to an end.

[Fhenrir]

Hopefully you don't agree with Yatokth on something for at least a week.

[Vyn]

Tyriel pet is going for about $400 last I saw, as well.



YOU MEAN THERE'S A TYRIEL PET?!?!?

I NEED THIS NOW!!!

I love me some Diablo 2.

[Okhu]

YOU MEAN THERE'S A TYRIEL PET?!?!?

I NEED THIS NOW!!!

I love me some Diablo 2.


It was a Blizzcon pet.

Should sell them all on the petstore IMO.

[Agnarr]

It was a Blizzcon pet.

Should sell them all on the petstore IMO.

No. Because then I can't ebay my blizzcon 2009 one next year.

[Okhu]

No. Because then I can't ebay my blizzcon 2009 one next year.


Yes, because I want to be able to laugh at you.

[Necroxis]

Hopefully you don't agree with Yatokth on something for at least a week.

World would literally explode.

[Yatokth]

World would literally explode.

I agree.

OHSHI-