102 thoughts on “Blizzard Opens Pet Store, Stocks Up On Cedar Chips”

1. I think its a cool idea. I hope this will give us a chance to get pets that we could not get before, like the zergling or *cough* Grunty. granted $10 for something that just follows you around and doesent do anything may be a bit much, but it adds another level of fun to the game. Great idea blizz.

2. The cost is way too high, it’s not a microtransaction. RMT is fine, as long as the costs are not out of whack, which this is. It also reeks of corporate greed. They do box sales, subscription fee, and now moving into RMT. Pick one, stop being so damn greedy.

3. As long as it stays a vanity only business I’ll be just fine with it. What do I care if the next guy has a “cool” pet? He’d better keep his dps up. If, however, they start adding “cosmetic” changes to gear it can start to get a little dicey for pvp. Charging a guy in “Tier 1″ gear and getting hit by his “Tier 10″ stats is not cool.

4. I Think its a good idea but i think they should of implemented it in another way instead of them making us open our wallets and give it to them on the other hand “MUST OBEY HENERY”

5. Remember Remember the 4th of November…The wailing and gnashing in game,
   A cute lich or very cool panda, lots of money for Blizzard to gain.

   Once again, Blizzard has turned the tables on what they said they would never do. Either pressure from Activision or a decline in subscribers is the cause for some very scary changes. These pets don’t affect the game, but I think it is a very small step from this to selling gold in micro-transactions. I mean the only thing you can not do at this point OTHER than buy gold is change your class, change profession, or buy mounts. We’ll see how long those hold out.

6. Actually this could be a great idea, because there are alot of pets that people want to get but dont always have to the time to work for (also a great way to give a gift to a friend/wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend).

7. I have to agree with Mercant, it’s not a big deal as long as it remains cosmetic, which I have no reason to believe it won’t.

   I am in disagreement with ScytheNoire though — RMT usually involves purchase of in game currency – something which can improve the quality and value of your character. This is for a cosmetic pet – it’s cool to have (check out Lil KT’s passive ability against critters). It wont make it easier for me to go in and faceroll the existing content. Also, 50% of the sales of the panda pet are going to ‘Make a Wish’.

   If wanting to make money as a business is the equivalent of corporate greed, then any business that turns any sort of a profit is, by definition, greedy. In essence, it’s saying ‘zomg that big guy has more cloth in his clothes than me and that’s not fair’. No, that fat guy’s fat – he needs more clothes to cover his body, and if he can go out and purchase said clothing, then what’s the big deal? (Unless he’s wearing ‘vintage’ clothing such as an 80s coca cola shirt that he bought at some boutique for $230… in which case, it’s a bit different).

   Now leave the fat guy alone. Nobody likes being called fat.

   -MB

8. i’ve seen other games do it for vital in game items, doing it on pets is just fine, especially since 50% of one goes to charity

9. I really hope this isn’t the starting point for future features where you can buy gear with RL cash :/

10. It’s no different than paying extra for a collector’s edition and getting the pet. Yea, you get other things as well, but most people (including myself) do it for the pet!

11. I like the idea. I would have liked it even more if all the pets/future items had a charity donation attached. That way your money could be used for something helpful that had real world value.

12. I sort of instinctively hate it – it’s like a toe in a pond that I hope Blizzard doesn’t jump in.

    That said, the charity is worthwhile!

13. I think they should give every pet a couple of fighting moves. Then they should make a mini game based on fighting them against other players pets.

14. I love the idea, it’s also great to see any money go to Make-A-Wish. And now that they have the Panderan out I’m sure I’ll personally look to pick him up with the next chance I get.

15. As long as it sticks to non-combat pets and maybe mounts I think its a cool idea. The only problem I have with it is the $10 price for an in game pet. That is ridiculous. I just hope they dont take all the reputation and rare drop mounts and pets out of the game so that people will have to buy them. That would suck.

16. I like the idea of them making these really awesome pets. But, I am not sure that I like the 10 dollar price tag for it. I wouldn’t mind if it was all going to charity. But as they have shown in the past it isn’t that hard for them to give pets out for free(Blizzard Bear, Penguin). I hope this isn’t them testing the customer base to see if selling other in game enhancements for money is viable.

17. I might be wrong about this but i think you guys had a discussion about blizzard selling stuff for in game use. You guys also quoted Michael Morhaime in saying that Blizzard will not focus on selling small items like this because they don’t need the small revenue this things will produce. I personally don’t like this because if they are willing to sell vanity pets, what is to stop them from selling gear or weapons for real money?

    HOPE I WIN!

18. I can see the slippery slope people are talking about, but the Pandaren Monk is crazy awesome! I think Blizz is going to be very wary of crossing any lines that may exist concerning selling things thy may give unfair advantages. They have had plenty of chances to take the short road before and have remained vigilant. So far, brilliant idea. Further, $10 seems cheep next to the $40 it would have cost to get the Direct TV package for Grunty.

19. Its not too much different from the collector’s addition, however I am hoping its only an every once in awhile thing and not every few weeks they add something news. 10 bucks seems a bit high but then people buy the game cards for chance at pets and other novelty items, which might be cheaper to buy via this new system.

20. It’s fun, but the price may be a little too high. Got the Pandaren Monk mostly because Blizzard is giving half to Make-A-Wish.

21. I think the idea of being able to get in-game pets from outside sources is a good idea but i think blizzard is going about it the wrong way in that you have to pay for them. be it the WoW TCG or this pet store. If they could make a way to obtain them by other means that did not require flat out paying for it, it would be far more appealing to me.
    For instance, when they were first starting the battle.net merges and they had the promotion with Mt. Dew you got a battle bot that fought with other battle bots that was cool, even if i woudl have had to spend my Mt. Dew contest gold to buy one, i would have. Something along those lines would be better imo.
    First time poster, Love the podcast, keep up the good work.
    I also love AppSlappy!- if you have an iPhone, subscribe!

22. 10$ is a fair price for a pet… especially when you consider people paid 40$ to get Grunty(yes some people got the stream jut for the pet) or 30$ to get Murkimus.
    And half the money going to Make-A-Wish lets me feel better about paying for digital goods.

23. I think the whole idea is great. I had three friends who had it within an hour of the announcement and both KT and the panda monk were hilarious in the Raid. I think any kind of vanity for your character is fine for something like being sold with real money. The fact that half of the donations for Pandaren monk makes the acceptance of this new practice easier to swallow for people who would likely hate the idea.

    As for what this could lead to… well i wouldn’t mind mounts and tabards. It is not too far off what we get with the trading card game right now. but that is more of a lottery.

24. I’m going to be grabbing both KT and the Pandaren Monk…the KT is soooo awesome though

25. I think the idea of buying pets is awesome, but like many on this forum, i feel they are a little expensive. I wonder if they would do something like that for like hunter or warlock pets. I don’t think it would be fair but we never know.

26. It’s nice that a portion of the proceeds go to the Make-a-Wish foundation. I think as long as they keep it to vanity items it’s a good idea. Just don’t make us pay even more than we already do for something that might give one player an advantage over another because he/she can afford it.

27. I think the price is a tad steep, but I’m glad that part of the cost is going to charity. I’m tempted.

28. This is a bad idea. If Blizzard starts charging for pets, how long before we pay for gear, mounts, etc. Call me a traditionalist, but I like getting my stuff the old fashioned way.

29. Im not a huge fan of this. It feels as if blizzard is trying to squeeze as much money out of us as they can. And although that 50% of the pandaren cost goes to charity it only seems like a cover up to justify such a high price. Granted the pets are really awesome and completely optional it feels as if blizzard is trying to dupe players into paying for something that is worth such a high price tag.

30. Very good idea! This is just the start of paying for cool stuff…but will this end up another way of Blizzard making more money off of over 10 million customers. Well i think paying for a vanity pet should have some functionality like the argent pet once you upgrade him. As for cheddar chips, they must have jalapeno flavor too sell well.

31. Honestly, you’d pay more than $10 for a WoW TCG pet. I’m not sure I’ll buy one, but it doesn’t really bother me that they are available. To each his/her/its own.

    I can’t imagine that they’d anything other than vanity items/pets, but who knows.

32. I think it’s a bit lame, something like a noncombat pet, whatever, as long as they don’t start adding items that change game play, or like character customization. That’s the main reason I refuse to play Champions, they have a mandatory subscription PLUS a cashshop, mostly filled with costume peices, but still, I think that business model is a big “EFF YOU” to customers. I bought the game and am paying $15 a month, If its not a fully qualified expansion pack, i shouldn’t have to pay extra for it. To answer your other question, yes, I would love a Grunty the Murloc Marine.

33. I think this is great, especially since the pets are interactive. I’ve got a few pets that don’t seem to do anything but follow me, but my favorites are ones that react in some way, like the Mt. Dew Battle Bots.

34. I think its good that half of the money from the Panda Monk (I believe) goes to charity because it is hard to find people willingly donating money for charities these days. Though I think this half-charity idea should go on forever instead of just a few months, it is still a cool gift/addition to someone’s pet collection.

    Now if I only had that Panda, my life would be complete. =P

35. I love this now my friend who prefers hunting for rare pets to gearing up or leveling up can buy the pets and instead play with me!

36. I honestly love it and yeah already bought them both. I collect in game pets and well as a day late birthday present to myself I had to get them. I am up to 97 now and well a grunty is one I definately do not have. I think bought items in game is fine as long as the items are not hampering game play (like bought gear would). I mean honestly it is not that much cash considering what some loot card sell for. That is highway robbery there.

37. It’s an ok idea but the price is too high for me to ever consider it.

38. It’s all about incentive right? You can buy the pests, I mean pets, on the site, but then you have to change your account over to a Battle.net account in order to get them to your avatar. While I don’t like that Blizzard is charging so much for them (really, $10? For something not real? What’s next, buying gold from Blizz?) I think it’s great incentive to get more people to change over to Battle.net.

39. Has anyone noticed that these aren’t the same quality as the 50s kittens in stormwind. I say bring it on!!!

40. I think its a freaking great idea. I already bought my Pandaren Monk. Partially because I always like to help out a charity, but mostly because he makes freaking Kung-Fu noises! And also responds in kind to any /bow in game.

    Blizzard does a great job in taking our money, but more than that, they know how to make little tweaks, and add cool things to the game that everyone will love.

    Non-combat pets are awesome. They give each of my characters the edge they need. Ive been trying for Shop Smart, Shop Pet…Smart for awhile, and with these two added to my army I will soon be able to conquer all of Azeroth! … Well, as soon as I figure out a way to get more than one behind me at at time.

41. I like the idea of it; even more with the Pandaren since half ($5 of the $10 cost) is going to the Make-a-Wish foundation. Many games are starting to have micro-transactions, why not Blizzard too. If nothing else, think of the pandaren as a $5 cost with a $5 donation to a charitable cause. More vanity\non-combat items will be welcomed. Let’s hope more of this charity donations are apart of it too… its not like Blizzard really needs all $10 from every pet purchased, and you can feel good about paying the cash for some extra pixels when it goes to a good cause.

42. I like that Blizzard wants to give us an incentive to support a charitable organization. I think where this particular idea may have gone a bit awry is offering it through the blizzard store. If they had told us about these cool pets we could get for a donation of X amount and provided a link to the Make-a-Wish foundation’s website. Then we make our donation to that organization and receive a code for the pet of our choice it would have been recieved a lot better, even if the foundation only kept a portion of the proceeds. Offering the pet through the Blizzard store appears to be the test case for offering microtransactions to WoW players. I cannot fault any business that takes action to secure more profits for itself, I jsut hope that the powers that be contain this sort of thing to cosmetic and/or “fluff” items that don’t make any real impact on gameplay. It is a slippery slope. However, I have trusted the folks at Blizzard to do what is best for the game for the duration of my playtime and will contune to do so for the forseeable future.

43. I love Blizzard and WoW but do they really need MORE $$? I would much rather buy a pet if all or at least a portion of the proceeds from buying/adopting an in-game pet, would go to the ASPCA or the National Humane Society to help real life pets who need adopting find a home.

44. I see it as both kinda good and kinda bad, having these pets is cool but things like this and other services Blizzard will really start to add up to a pretty penny, if this is becomes popular who knows maybe they’ll start selling mounts and tabards for real $$. I would like to see some sorta discount on the subscription if they’re gona start selling in-game items and what not. =^_^= <obey Henry.

45. Okay, I’m an idiot and totally missed the Make-a-wish Foundation part. DOH!

46. could be a good thing though the price could be a little high (£9 for me), i will perhaps purchase the Monk though and feel like i’m doing some good for humanity

47. I think that Make-a-Wish Foundation is going to find this a fantastic opportunity to raise money for their charity. It’s a shame that only one of the pets has this benefit.

    It is however disappointing that Blizzard will be capitalizing on people’s desire to have vanity items. Given the numbers of players that I’m sure have or will purchase this, did it really have to cost more than a few dollars? Or it could have been a limited time offer with all proceeds going towards a charity. At least then, I wouldn’t feel as used with it running behind my characters.

48. I like the idea as long as they dont get to out of hand with it.

49. yeah for more pets!

50. I can’t really see the point of paying real money for vanity pets honestly. They look cool, but wow…