Skoll Shorties

The mounts aren't mandatory, however for a company like Blizzard in this day and age where they're not gonna get new players they can put mounts like that up for those who want to pay for it. Plus you can buy it with gold in-game.

I dont think the mounts are the biggest issue but this argument that, "you can just buy it with gold in-game" falls apart because there's still money transitioning to Blizzard in the transition, even if its not from you. It's from the person using the token.

That's fair but I just think that the issue can also stem from people saying, "I can't afford this." or something or other but they can at least afford it with the gold they've made in the game.

From all the things I've seen about this topic, the problem people have are with having a cash shop in a game you need to both buy to play and purchase a subscription, not, "I can't afford it."

I don't really hear that argument that much but I've been mostly keeping my eye on twitter than the forums or on YouTube.

I mean its the biggest criticism of microtransactions in games, the notion of paying for a game twice over and still having a shop. Its unabashed money grubbing behavior. Especially with how insanely overpriced the WoW shop actually is.

One of my friends made a good point that WoW is still $15 a month and has been that way since 2004 and that hasn't changed. But the operating costs have gone up. So they could've charged us more a month or they give us optional mounts and pets that aren't a requirement.

Operating Costs going up doesnt excuse an influx of cash shop options, especially when the operation costs are directly controlled by the company. It's not some unmanageable beast that is out of their control. They chose to increase their team with no apparent increase in quality