This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Give 55 gold to all those who bought the 40 mount...
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
UnknownSoldier
Hate to break it to you bud but you'll never get the money back..
I'm not sure how Blizzard would be able to trace when people got their mount and with respect, you've got 1 char above 30 by the sounds of it, the rest of your chars will benefit from it.
Mount cost to one character = minimum of 6,845 gold (as of current patch).
Post by
159616
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gyonex
This is just no big deal, ive have already payed for 40 lvl mounts 4 times. A refund is not likely to happen, thats the way it is. But what i really wanted to see is blizzard lowering the level and price for all existing mounts, exept for flying mounts, and make 120% ground mounts at lvl 60, and epic fm with 150% ground speed. Forget the gold, i want more and faster mounts!!!
I see your point but acept it: life is cruel, you either adapt or get run over by it......
Post by
Tiran
Outside of the auction house (where the mere existence of supply and demand could but shouldn't be defined as an "economy"), there is no economy so your analogy doesn't apply.
And if I bought a car at $15,000 and the price was lowered to $10,000 the following week, I am usually not contractually obligated to receive a refund because the contract was written by the seller and they are protecting their own interests.
But
is that just or equitable? Is it fair? Is it good business? Just because dishonest business exists in the world in no way invalidates what I said.
If you're going to dispute what is being considered as economy, you should provide your own definition. You're trading one thing for another, which seems sufficient for any discussion that has yet been presented in this thread.
The thing about contracts is that you as the buyer are under no obligation to enter into them either. So either you agree to the terms that have been set forth, or you don't and there is no transaction.
If you've agreed to it, then by definition it is just.
If it wasn't equitable to receive a car in exchange for $15,000, you wouldn't have done it in the first place.
Is it fair? Depends on what you mean by fair. If everyone pays $15,000 for a new car whenever they buy it, then it's certainly fair from that point of view. If you're going to argue that it's not fair because not everyone pays $15,000 for that specific model regardless of when they buy it, then each successive model will have to cost more than the previous. But that's not fair to someone who buys a car in the future (not to mention it leads to massive inflation which gives the same net result as the situation you're complaning about).
It may be good business from the standpoint of attracting customers to offer refunds, but then the company isn't bringing in as much money either, which can result in the company going out of business. That's not good business either.
The problem some people have with understanding things is that you can only assess the fairness of something in the moment and situation that it occured. Was it acceptable at that point in time? If so, then there is absolutely nothing to complain about unless provisions were made to allow for possible future changes. If one of the parties wants to offer some recompense due to later changes, they are welcome to, but in no way are they required to.
Post by
104412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
Outside of the auction house (where the mere existence of supply and demand could but shouldn't be defined as an "economy"), there is no economy so your analogy doesn't apply.
Hmm. Never seen anyone selling pots, mats, cloth, enchants, or any of the other profession items outside the auction house huh? It's odd that major economists have performed studies on this non-existent economy in World of Warcraft to draw parallels from it to real-world economy.
If you're talking about at a player-program level - i.e., the game is the vendor - then by your argument we're all owed refunds of the difference between the cost of the items we've purchased from a vendor and the lowered prices you receive on those items after you've increased your reputation with that faction.
I'm sorry. It's not going to happen - and it shouldn't happen, because it isn't necessary, nor is anyone owed that in any way, shape, or form.
And if I bought a car at $15,000 and the price was lowered to $10,000 the following week, I am usually not contractually obligated to receive a refund because the contract was written by the seller and they are protecting their own interests. But is that just or equitable? Is it fair? Is it good business? Just because dishonest business exists in the world in no way invalidates what I said.
Yes. It's perfectly good business. It's fair. It's
absolutely
fair and in no way dishonest. Please show me a business that works otherwise. I won't hold my breath.
The only time that you see this in real-world economy is when a vendor specifically advertisies that they will match a competitor's guaranteed price. You know, the sorts of things you see electronics places advertising? "Find a lower price anywhere and we'll beat it!" sort of thing? But guess what? That only applies to that vendor because they've specifically advertised it. And even then it typically has a statute of limitations on it - you can't go back to the electronics store a year after you purchased the TV with an ad showing the TV at another store for $500 less and demand a refund.
Well, no - you can. Please do. And videotape it, then upload it to Youtube so we can laugh at you.
Any
purchase of any type, at any time in any place without completely economy-wrecking and moronic laws (I'm not aware of any) is a contract stating that you agree to pay the vendor that amount in return for a good or a service at that time. If economy and commerce worked the way that you believe it should (or does) then we'd not even have the weak sham of an economy we have now.
Post by
142038
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
179570
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pewpewmoo
Things become cheaper over time, and you don't get a refund. You
do
have the option of waiting until things are cheaper, or you can pay the premium and get it early. Same applies here.
Indeed. Those tech nerds amongst us will know that if you want things as soon as they appear, you pay the price. You CAN wait til things get chearper, but there's a constant battle between waiting for the price to drop and getting what you want when you want it.
Post by
174480
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
4434
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
dinnerbone
The economy changes, you have to live with it.
Blizzard reduced the cost on the assumption that at low levels 100g was quite hard to get, especially with the reduction in the amount of quests that people needed to level. If blizzard gave a refund to everyone who already had the mount, then gold would have less worth and AH/trade prices would raise. The people who had the mounts previously would not be effected by this sudden price turn because what's 55g to a level 70? But the people who this change was intended to help would end up being further hurt.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.