The $15 Celestial Steed item in World of Warcraft made more money than all of StarCraft II

[midian182]

WTF?! Most people really hate microtransactions, to the point where games are sometimes review bombed over what users perceive as developers being greedy. So, why do companies continue to adhere to this practice? A former Blizzard employee summed it up in one perfect example: "A $15 microtransaction horse made more money than StarCraft 2."

Jason Hall started Washington state-based indie team Pirate Software in 2017 after many years of being an employee at Blizzard, where he worked on games such as Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, and Overwatch.

In a short on Pirate Software's YouTube channel, Hall talks about something that has brought Blizzard plenty of infamy: microtransactions. He claims that the first sparkle pony mount, officially called the Celestial Steed, that was released for World of Warcraft in April 2010 made more money than StarCraft 2.

Hall said that the Celestial Steed cost $15, but it was actually $25 at launch, something that ignited plenty of anger back at the time. But, as we've seen throughout microtransaction history, gamers' fury did not result in the Steed becoming a failure. Within three hours of its release, the queue for the mount was seven hours long with 140,000 people waiting to hand over their money. That number of sales would have brought in $3.5 million for Blizzard, in less than a day.

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty had reportedly sold more than 3 million units worldwide just two months after it released in July 2010, and 6 million by the end of 2012. Blizzard said that by the end of 2017, the entire StarCraft franchise had generated revenue of over $1 billion.

"That's the whole meme, dude," Hall said, before eloquently explaining, "You're wondering why these companies do microtransactions? Because dipsh*ts keep buying all of them."

Blizzard continues to receive criticism for its inclusion of microtransactions today. The mobile-focused Diablo Immortal has the third-worst user score ever on Metacritic, yet the free-to-play mobile game made $50 million in its first month of release alone. There are also microtransactions in the very successful (and full price) Diablo 4, albeit to a lesser extent. The bottom line is that as long as they keep making millions of dollars, don't expect microtransactions to go away, no matter how much pushback they receive.

h/t: Game World Observer

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/100833-former-blizzard-worker-reveals-celestial-steed-microtransaction-wow.html

 

[Jerry in WA]

3.5 million in horse money is "more" than 1 billion of Starcraft money? Perhaps they meant "easier" money for that month but overall, that seems to be about 996 million less monies in the long run.

 

[Kinemon]

3.5 million in horse money is "more" than 1 billion of Starcraft money?

The 3.5 million is the value of the queue at launch of the horse not total sales.

The article doesn't say total amount made from the horse just that it is higher.

 

[Dunkerton]

>>"celestial steed made more money"
>>actually made almost a billion less dollars than SC2
>>mfw

techspot wtf? are you even reading your own clickbait titles?

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not corporations fault that microtransactions are widespread. It's consumers. If L33T Gamurz didnt dump money on microtransactiosn they wouldnt have stuck around. But being the consooomers they are, this greedy practice prints mints annually. Gamers have nobody to blame but themselves for the state of their hobby.

The 3.5 million is the value of the queue at launch of the horse not total sales.

The article doesn't say total amount made from the horse just that it is higher.

Also the $1 billion is total revenue from the StarCraft franchise, not the income form the sales of 2. Very....strange way to write an article.

>>"celestial steed made more money"
>>actually made almost a billion less dollars than SC2
>>mfw

techspot wtf? are you even reading your own clickbait titles?

>>thinks starcraft 2 made over a billion
>>article says franchise revenue

LMFAO

 

[yRaz]

$15 is not a micro transaction, that's a decent lunch out plus a tip(I'm American).

Micro transactions are anything that's basically a dollar or under. Or, I'd say if it costs less than a candy bar or bottle of pop($2-3) it can be considered a micro transaction.

But I have to agree with Blizzard, it's because dipshits keep buying them. I also don't have a problem with strictly cosmetic items. It does take an artist's time to make them and they do take away some of the montieny of a game. It gets boring seeing the same 10 sets of armor over and over again. Some of the more elaborate cosmetic items I've seen could have taken a skilled artist several days or even a couple weeks to make, I don't think paying upwards of $10 for a highly stylish item in a game you enjoy is unreasonable. $25, though, that's pretty wild. I also can't find the game, but I remember reading about a game that had cosmetics that cost over $1000 and would make you custom skins for $2500.

 

[Dunkerton]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not corporations fault that microtransactions are widespread. It's consumers. If L33T Gamurz didnt dump money on microtransactiosn they wouldnt have stuck around. But being the consooomers they are, this greedy practice prints mints annually. Gamers have nobody to blame but themselves for the state of their hobby.

Also the $1 billion is total revenue from the StarCraft franchise, not the income form the sales of 2. Very....strange way to write an article.

>>thinks starcraft 2 made over a billion
>>article says franchise revenue

LMFAO

ah right, revenue =/= profit. I just want one of my favorite games to not be so abandoned lol

 

[madboyv1]

I honestly have 0 issue with optional cosmetic items, they are a want not a need. Sometimes the developer chooses to charge crazy amounts for them ($15 for a mount would be on the more inexpensive side in the Final Fantasy XIV Online Store) and we all sneer and lament how greedy it seems. At the end of the day it's the player that decides it's value is worth that and buys it.

And I mean, I can't blame developers either... It is a very low effort-high return way of increasing revenue.

 

[kira setsu]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not corporations fault that microtransactions are widespread. It's consumers. If L33T Gamurz didnt dump money on microtransactiosn they wouldnt have stuck around. But being the consooomers they are, this greedy practice prints mints annually. Gamers have nobody to blame but themselves for the state of their hobby.

Also the $1 billion is total revenue from the StarCraft franchise, not the income form the sales of 2. Very....strange way to write an article.

>>thinks starcraft 2 made over a billion
>>article says franchise revenue

LMFAO

Thats the key point, gamers are one of, if not the dumbest fanbase there is.

everything they complain about they also actively participate in,

They know games are busted on day 1, still buy it on release though,
still preorder as soon as possible.
gripe at dlc etc etc, still buy it all by the boatload.

the devs and studios just do what they do because they're allowed to, sometimes they get checked but the leash is so long they dont really care.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

ah right, revenue =/= profit. I just want one of my favorite games to not be so abandoned lol

I wasnt roasting you over the revenue=/profit thing, I was roasting you for taking the entire series revenue as starcraft 2 revenue alone while simultaneously slamming techspot for reading their own source incorrectly. It's ironically hilarious, doubly so as you then responded to me and got my quote wrong as well.

All in good jest of course :]

Thats the key point, gamers are one of, if not the dumbest fanbase there is.

everything they complain about they also actively participate in,

They know games are busted on day 1, still buy it on release though,
still preorder as soon as possible.
gripe at dlc etc etc, still buy it all by the boatload.

the devs and studios just do what they do because they're allowed to, sometimes they get checked but the leash is so long they dont really care.

Gamers in general. Look at the BS that the W40k guys deal with constantly. When FFG started mucking around with x wing, the community just immediately dissolved, but the warhammer guys will take out another loan for overpriced plastic minis.

 

[brucek]

I've come around to liking a specific form of microtransaction, like the WoW mounts. This is a game with literally hundreds of mounts (could be over 1000 now), the vast majority of which can be obtained via in-game play. And with so many mounts, the chance of anyone noticing or caring about one specific mount -- even yourself -- is pretty low. This sets up a situation that I call progressive pricing: players can effectively choose how much they want to pay for a game, within bounds. Players like me who buy a minimum of these items are effectively getting subsidized playtime from other players who prefer to buy them. Works for me.

Where I still hate mtx is anytime it feels required to progress or enjoy the game or feel like you're getting a complete experience.

 

[GoldenGoat]

There is nothing wrong with paying for cosmetics. Though I personally don't buy cosmetics in games that require a subscription just to access said cosmetics.