How much would you pay for a pet?

  • I don't see how there could be a debate here.
    The gaming industry always worked like this on similar games.
    The controversy is justified in solo games having MTX like AC: Odyssey, not in multiplayer games like SoT.
    There's no "they don't charge for dlc because they know they couldn't get away with it if they did" argument to have here. For one, you can't possibly know about that and for two, that's just not true.
    Elite: Dangerous "got away with it". This game has MTX for ships skins AND paid extension that fragments the playerbase. They got away with it just fine. I saw nobody in the forums there complaining. And the game was in the same state at launch than SoT was at launch.

    Thinking that the 50-70€ you paid, we all paid, almost 1 year ago will be enough for the game to be updated like it did for another year or plus is just naive. New sells won't be enough to.

    When I paid 70€ one year ago on the MStore, I had no idea that I would fall in love with this game that much. I also had no idea how Rare would be so great at updating the game. Look how the game has grown in 11 months. The game had almost no content 11 months ago and now there's plenty of things to do on the sea. In 11 months, SoT has grown far better than Elite: Dangerous did in 2 years, wich was in a similar state may I recall. And I paid ED 120€ for beta access + lifetime expansion pass. Still had to pay for skins though.

    But I'm not complaining as I've spent 800-1000h in this game alone.
    Same thing for SoT, this game has given so much extraordinary moments that I just need a reason to support the game a little more, like MTX.
    This is how the industry works. We either continue to have free-dlc and pay for some cosmetics MTX, or we don't.


    Now to answer the OP, I'll gladly pay something like 5-15€ for a beautiful pet with awesome interactions. One thing I would find absolutely AMAZING is having a parrot that can repeat some of the words you're saying with a little "parroty" voice. Oh man, I'm laughing just by imagining it !

  • @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I don't see how there could be a debate here.
    The gaming industry always worked like this on similar games.
    The controversy is justified in solo games having MTX like AC: Odyssey, not in multiplayer games like SoT.
    There's no "they don't charge for dlc because they know they couldn't get away with it if they did" argument to have here. For one, you can't possibly know about that and for two, that's just not true.
    Elite: Dangerous "got away with it". This game has MTX for ships skins AND paid extension that fragments the playerbase. They got away with it just fine. I saw nobody in the forums there complaining. And the game was in the same state at launch than SoT was at launch.

    Thinking that the 50-70€ you paid, we all paid, almost 1 year ago will be enough for the game to be updated like it did for another year or plus is just naive. New sells won't be enough to.

    When I paid 70€ one year ago on the MStore, I had no idea that I would fall in love with this game that much. I also had no idea how Rare would be so great at updating the game. Look how the game has grown in 11 months. The game had almost no content 11 months ago and now there's plenty of things to do on the sea. In 11 months, SoT has grown far better than Elite: Dangerous did in 2 years, wich was in a similar state may I recall. And I paid ED 120€ for beta access + lifetime expansion pass. Still had to pay for skins though.

    But I'm not complaining as I've spent 800-1000h in this game alone.
    Same thing for SoT, this game has given so much extraordinary moments that I just need a reason to support the game a little more, like MTX.
    This is how the industry works. We either continue to have free-dlc and pay for some cosmetics MTX, or we don't.


    Now to answer the OP, I'll gladly pay something like 5-15€ for a beautiful pet with awesome interactions. One thing I would find absolutely AMAZING is having a parrot that can repeat some of the words you're saying with a little "parroty" voice. Oh man, I'm laughing just by imagining it !

    No it didn't, there's plenty of games with online multiplayer from last gen that didn't push cosmetic microtransactions.

  • @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I don't see how there could be a debate here.
    The gaming industry always worked like this on similar games.
    The controversy is justified in solo games having MTX like AC: Odyssey, not in multiplayer games like SoT.
    There's no "they don't charge for dlc because they know they couldn't get away with it if they did" argument to have here. For one, you can't possibly know about that and for two, that's just not true.
    Elite: Dangerous "got away with it". This game has MTX for ships skins AND paid extension that fragments the playerbase. They got away with it just fine. I saw nobody in the forums there complaining. And the game was in the same state at launch than SoT was at launch.

    Thinking that the 50-70€ you paid, we all paid, almost 1 year ago will be enough for the game to be updated like it did for another year or plus is just naive. New sells won't be enough to.

    When I paid 70€ one year ago on the MStore, I had no idea that I would fall in love with this game that much. I also had no idea how Rare would be so great at updating the game. Look how the game has grown in 11 months. The game had almost no content 11 months ago and now there's plenty of things to do on the sea. In 11 months, SoT has grown far better than Elite: Dangerous did in 2 years, wich was in a similar state may I recall. And I paid ED 120€ for beta access + lifetime expansion pass. Still had to pay for skins though.

    But I'm not complaining as I've spent 800-1000h in this game alone.
    Same thing for SoT, this game has given so much extraordinary moments that I just need a reason to support the game a little more, like MTX.
    This is how the industry works. We either continue to have free-dlc and pay for some cosmetics MTX, or we don't.


    Now to answer the OP, I'll gladly pay something like 5-15€ for a beautiful pet with awesome interactions. One thing I would find absolutely AMAZING is having a parrot that can repeat some of the words you're saying with a little "parroty" voice. Oh man, I'm laughing just by imagining it !

    No it didn't, there's plenty of games with online multiplayer from last gen that didn't push cosmetic microtransactions.

    Big games like SOT with:
    Servers to run constantly?
    Many huge free updates in 11 months ?
    No charged expansions ?
    No monthly subscription ?
    Being a "game as service" type with no sequel in mind for many years after ?
    A dev team (workers that needs to be paid), that is growing while still working on the same game ?

    Instead of just saying that these games exist, why don't you name one ? Because if the answer is "Yes" to all the questions above, I think you found a game that has revolutionised the inudstry without anybody noticing. Hell, even Blizzard with WOW should take notes and that's an old game.

  • @mr-dragon-raaar said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @fractal-pitch there actually was a lot of moaning about the ship skins in elite.
    Probably from the same entitled gamers that are in this thread :)

    I think I own every asp skin released plus ship kits etc. Never bought the lep (that's looking like a good move right now) and have definitely got my money's worth.

    I'd love the ship kit idea for SoT btw.

    Hardly "entitled" is it, when a consumer pays for a product.

    If anything they more than have the right to be critical.

  • @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I don't see how there could be a debate here.
    The gaming industry always worked like this on similar games.
    The controversy is justified in solo games having MTX like AC: Odyssey, not in multiplayer games like SoT.
    There's no "they don't charge for dlc because they know they couldn't get away with it if they did" argument to have here. For one, you can't possibly know about that and for two, that's just not true.
    Elite: Dangerous "got away with it". This game has MTX for ships skins AND paid extension that fragments the playerbase. They got away with it just fine. I saw nobody in the forums there complaining. And the game was in the same state at launch than SoT was at launch.

    Thinking that the 50-70€ you paid, we all paid, almost 1 year ago will be enough for the game to be updated like it did for another year or plus is just naive. New sells won't be enough to.

    When I paid 70€ one year ago on the MStore, I had no idea that I would fall in love with this game that much. I also had no idea how Rare would be so great at updating the game. Look how the game has grown in 11 months. The game had almost no content 11 months ago and now there's plenty of things to do on the sea. In 11 months, SoT has grown far better than Elite: Dangerous did in 2 years, wich was in a similar state may I recall. And I paid ED 120€ for beta access + lifetime expansion pass. Still had to pay for skins though.

    But I'm not complaining as I've spent 800-1000h in this game alone.
    Same thing for SoT, this game has given so much extraordinary moments that I just need a reason to support the game a little more, like MTX.
    This is how the industry works. We either continue to have free-dlc and pay for some cosmetics MTX, or we don't.


    Now to answer the OP, I'll gladly pay something like 5-15€ for a beautiful pet with awesome interactions. One thing I would find absolutely AMAZING is having a parrot that can repeat some of the words you're saying with a little "parroty" voice. Oh man, I'm laughing just by imagining it !

    No it didn't, there's plenty of games with online multiplayer from last gen that didn't push cosmetic microtransactions.

    Big games like SOT with:
    Servers to run constantly?
    Many huge free updates in 11 months ?
    No charged expansions ?
    No monthly subscription ?
    Being a "game as service" type with no sequel in mind for many years after ?
    A dev team (workers that needs to be paid), that is growing while still working on the same game ?

    Instead of just saying that these games exist, why don't you name one ? Because if the answer is "Yes" to all the questions above, I think you found a game that has revolutionised the inudstry without anybody noticing. Hell, even Blizzard with WOW should take notes and that's an old game.

    Like I said to someone else here, the "free" content is by no means a gesture of goodwill , but Instead much more of a necessity by rare In response to universal negative reception of the game upon it's release. That's irrefutable.

    If they didn't SOT would be in the dumpster already.

    And once again, if overheads were that much of a concern, they would have been better off by delaying the game instead of releasing it 6+ months too early and incurring the costs that go along with having your service go live.

    Thus the onus here is on rare, not the consumer.

    Some of these last gen games with similar server capacities as SOT per instance, that have zero cosmetic microtransactions are still live all these years later. Comparing it to WOW isn't a apples for apples example and instead a bit of a mute one. If I had to make a comparison I would instead compare it to something like GTA 4.

  • @mr-dragon-raaar said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells Demanding something for free when there is a choice whether to buy it or not is the very definition of entitlement.

    I respect your choice to not buy any pets for whatever reasons you have.

    And that's my point, every single user has already paid weather it's game pass or a individual copy. They have the right to be critical and thus isn't being "entitled"

    Brushing it off as such is insulting to the consumer.

    By your own perception of "entitlement" because that's what it is, you are theoretically implying that any player critical of the lack of content and state of the game upon release is also "entitled" when In reality that is only down to rare's lack of foresight.

  • @mr-dragon-raaar said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells ok mate. You win.
    I've got some dolphin diving to do! :)

    Awesome have fun amigo :)

  • To me this depends on what they look like!e and what they can do or will do.
    I'm curious what they will sell other than pets.

  • alt text

  • I would pay $50 for a squirrel that gets drunk. And then it pukes and goes to the bathroom everywhere. 😁

  • @trixster13 said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I would pay $50 for a squirrel that gets drunk. And then it pukes and goes to the bathroom everywhere. 😁

    Go to any park In Lowestoft, you can get one for free ;)

  • I'm extremely doubtful that Microsoft are even earning a profit on Game Pass right now at $9.99 a month, if you're even in the 1% of people who isn't on one of those promotional deals for $1, or $2, or three months for the price of one. They see Game Pass as a consistent future profit driver for them, and thus are willing to let it burn cash for now - something they can afford to do.

    It may or may not be profitable YET, but what are actual costs to run Game Pass? the Xbox interface is now built-in to Windows OS, essentially a large file download mechanism, which is what Microsoft already performs in economy to scale with their OS & Application suites.

    Except in the case of GamePass, Microsoft doesnt need to create the download material, just collate from game makers, and act as publishing hub.

    While GamePass may not be maximizing potential revenue (due intro-specials, etc..) unless they are really overpaying content providers, would they really be losing money?

    And let's say the economics were bad, Microsoft may be fine with break-even, or even losing on GamePass/XBox live, so long as they feel they can make up the profits in console/equipment sales. Remember they monetize the entire ecosystem, and not fixate on any one sub-component.

    I would expect royalties paid content providers be pro-rated, if you use your GamePass time exclusively on SoT for a given month, Rare gets a significant chunk of the monthly royalty, while all games that went unplayed get much smaller to negligible amounts. (would be interesting to know exact terms GamePass compensates Rare).

    Intro offers only consider recent joiners, subscribers from years prior could be well past the introductory special. Each April would be when seasonal cohorts of holiday subscribers exhaust their honeymoon phase.

    Oh, and they announced DLC would come to the game a few months after launch... before it launched. So there goes that reasoning. I think they even confirmed it would be pets.

    Can you cite links? I would like to note this.
    Remember it needs to mention new content will be available for payment.

  • @khompewtur

    Ahoy there, you'll likely find this mentioned in a plethora of articles and interviews released around Feb last year, after a press visit to Rare HQ and lifting of a press embargo prior to release - they were collated here on a thread which is now in Davy Jones' Locker but are still readable.

    https://www.seaofthieves.com/forum/topic/30834/list-of-news-articles-february-press-embargo-lifted?page=1

  • @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @mr-dragon-raaar said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @fractal-pitch there actually was a lot of moaning about the ship skins in elite.
    Probably from the same entitled gamers that are in this thread :)

    I think I own every asp skin released plus ship kits etc. Never bought the lep (that's looking like a good move right now) and have definitely got my money's worth.

    I'd love the ship kit idea for SoT btw.

    Hardly "entitled" is it, when a consumer pays for a product.

    You got what you paid for day 1. Access to the game. That's what you paid for. It's irrelevant what you feel you personally paid for and should have gotten out of it. You bought the product being sold, as is.

    Rare doesn't HAVE to release free content out of necessity because you feel they do. Devs can, have, and will continue to charge full price for titles some people think are massively lacking, and still just leave it at that... it really is just that simple.

    Instead, you paid for the game as it was, and as it was sold. And since then, have had the game you initially paid for expand and change immensely, and still planning to do so, all without requiring you to pay an extra dime for these big game expansions.

    You also bought the product with the knowledge of MTX being in the pipeline, because that was something they did state before release.

    Game wasn't released with pets. We all paid for the game as it was. Realistically, beyond that anything a dev adds could be charged for if they wanted, and there'd be nothing you could do but either pay, or dont. What you wont do though, is remove them by trying to justify your initial purchase.

  • @tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @mr-dragon-raaar said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @fractal-pitch there actually was a lot of moaning about the ship skins in elite.
    Probably from the same entitled gamers that are in this thread :)

    I think I own every asp skin released plus ship kits etc. Never bought the lep (that's looking like a good move right now) and have definitely got my money's worth.

    I'd love the ship kit idea for SoT btw.

    Hardly "entitled" is it, when a consumer pays for a product.

    You got what you paid for day 1. Access to the game. That's what you paid for. It's irrelevant what you feel you personally paid for and should have gotten out of it. You bought the product being sold, as is.

    Rare doesn't HAVE to release free content out of necessity because you feel they do. Devs can, have, and will continue to charge full price for titles some people think are massively lacking, and still just leave it at that... it really is just that simple.

    Instead, you paid for the game as it was, and as it was sold. And since then, have had the game you initially paid for expand and change immensely, and still planning to do so, all without requiring you to pay an extra dime for these big game expansions.

    You also bought the product with the knowledge of MTX being in the pipeline, because that was something they did state before release.

    Game wasn't released with pets. We all paid for the game as it was. Realistically, beyond that anything a dev adds could be charged for if they wanted, and there'd be nothing you could do but either pay, or dont. What you wont do though, is remove them by trying to justify your initial purchase.

    Actually they released free content in response to the backlash from the community and the media upon release. The reason for this ? Avoiding being grouped with other controversies at the time and not doing anything to damage their reputation further. It's not "I feel" it's instead what actually happened at the time. The alternative if they didn't ? The game most certainly wouldn't be in the position it is now would it.

    And as for there being nothing that I can do , there is , I can continue to give feedback through the correct avenues, which I currently am.

    It's already worked for other subsections of this community and unfortunately for you I reserve the right to continue justifying my opinions, after all that is how feedback works.

  • @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @mr-dragon-raaar said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @fractal-pitch there actually was a lot of moaning about the ship skins in elite.
    Probably from the same entitled gamers that are in this thread :)

    I think I own every asp skin released plus ship kits etc. Never bought the lep (that's looking like a good move right now) and have definitely got my money's worth.

    I'd love the ship kit idea for SoT btw.

    Hardly "entitled" is it, when a consumer pays for a product.

    You got what you paid for day 1. Access to the game. That's what you paid for. It's irrelevant what you feel you personally paid for and should have gotten out of it. You bought the product being sold, as is.

    Rare doesn't HAVE to release free content out of necessity because you feel they do. Devs can, have, and will continue to charge full price for titles some people think are massively lacking, and still just leave it at that... it really is just that simple.

    Instead, you paid for the game as it was, and as it was sold. And since then, have had the game you initially paid for expand and change immensely, and still planning to do so, all without requiring you to pay an extra dime for these big game expansions.

    You also bought the product with the knowledge of MTX being in the pipeline, because that was something they did state before release.

    Game wasn't released with pets. We all paid for the game as it was. Realistically, beyond that anything a dev adds could be charged for if they wanted, and there'd be nothing you could do but either pay, or dont. What you wont do though, is remove them by trying to justify your initial purchase.

    Actually they released free content in response to the backlash from the community and the media upon release. The reason for this ? Avoiding being grouped with other controversies at the time and not doing anything to damage their reputation further. It's not "I feel" it's instead what actually happened at the time. The alternative if they didn't ? The game most certainly wouldn't be in the position it is now would it.

    This just isn't true though.

    They've been pretty open about how content was going to work from the start.

    Pets and MTX were postponed because people wanted the focus to be more on newer content first. Thats about it.

    Here we are almost a full year later though, plenty of changes and content, and a "Mega Update" on the horizon, again.. all still free, so I guess nows about time.

  • @tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @mr-dragon-raaar said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @fractal-pitch there actually was a lot of moaning about the ship skins in elite.
    Probably from the same entitled gamers that are in this thread :)

    I think I own every asp skin released plus ship kits etc. Never bought the lep (that's looking like a good move right now) and have definitely got my money's worth.

    I'd love the ship kit idea for SoT btw.

    Hardly "entitled" is it, when a consumer pays for a product.

    You got what you paid for day 1. Access to the game. That's what you paid for. It's irrelevant what you feel you personally paid for and should have gotten out of it. You bought the product being sold, as is.

    Rare doesn't HAVE to release free content out of necessity because you feel they do. Devs can, have, and will continue to charge full price for titles some people think are massively lacking, and still just leave it at that... it really is just that simple.

    Instead, you paid for the game as it was, and as it was sold. And since then, have had the game you initially paid for expand and change immensely, and still planning to do so, all without requiring you to pay an extra dime for these big game expansions.

    You also bought the product with the knowledge of MTX being in the pipeline, because that was something they did state before release.

    Game wasn't released with pets. We all paid for the game as it was. Realistically, beyond that anything a dev adds could be charged for if they wanted, and there'd be nothing you could do but either pay, or dont. What you wont do though, is remove them by trying to justify your initial purchase.

    Actually they released free content in response to the backlash from the community and the media upon release. The reason for this ? Avoiding being grouped with other controversies at the time and not doing anything to damage their reputation further. It's not "I feel" it's instead what actually happened at the time. The alternative if they didn't ? The game most certainly wouldn't be in the position it is now would it.

    This just isn't true though

    Prove me wrong then?

    The developers intent was always to release additional content after release quickly, because they had the foresight to realise they needed to for reasons including the above.

    [mod edit] with interviews from Joe neate even recognising that release wasn't the right time in his mind for MTX'S and instead focusing on adding content to flesh out the world, to give players experiences.

  • @katttruewalker said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @khompewtur

    Ahoy there, you'll likely find this mentioned in a plethora of articles and interviews released around Feb last year, after a press visit to Rare HQ and lifting of a press embargo prior to release - they were collated here on a thread which is now in Davy Jones' Locker but are still readable.

    https://www.seaofthieves.com/forum/topic/30834/list-of-news-articles-february-press-embargo-lifted?page=1

    Thank you katttruewalker, for citing these references.

    This is a great confirmation that Rare recognized the problematic nature of a pay to win model, and swears it will never happen in SoT. this is very uplifting and seeing these articles I think the game deserves of modicum more of trust & appreciation for Approaching this with a good philosophy.

    As we add additional stuff to the game down the line, there's no intent to charge for the content updates – there's no season pass, there are no DLC packs, that stuff will be delivered for free, we don't want to separate our players. But at the same time, we'll bring in an optional way to spend money, and as we grow and evolve the game and new stuff comes in, we'll be trying other things – what other things can fit into that same kind of vision – fun potions? Maybe it lets you drink it so that you look old – adding emotional value as opposed to anything else, that just fit into our Sea of Thieves world.

    Items for purchase will never have a mechanical impact on the game, which is good news. If people want to voluntarily spend on fun additional content that doesnt impact capability, no one should really have issue with that. it's kind of like just buying & wearing nice clothes, everyone has the option.

    So people dont have issue with cosmetic MTX, they have issue with MTX that affect mechanical play.

  • @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @mr-dragon-raaar said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @fractal-pitch there actually was a lot of moaning about the ship skins in elite.
    Probably from the same entitled gamers that are in this thread :)

    I think I own every asp skin released plus ship kits etc. Never bought the lep (that's looking like a good move right now) and have definitely got my money's worth.

    I'd love the ship kit idea for SoT btw.

    Hardly "entitled" is it, when a consumer pays for a product.

    You got what you paid for day 1. Access to the game. That's what you paid for. It's irrelevant what you feel you personally paid for and should have gotten out of it. You bought the product being sold, as is.

    Rare doesn't HAVE to release free content out of necessity because you feel they do. Devs can, have, and will continue to charge full price for titles some people think are massively lacking, and still just leave it at that... it really is just that simple.

    Instead, you paid for the game as it was, and as it was sold. And since then, have had the game you initially paid for expand and change immensely, and still planning to do so, all without requiring you to pay an extra dime for these big game expansions.

    You also bought the product with the knowledge of MTX being in the pipeline, because that was something they did state before release.

    Game wasn't released with pets. We all paid for the game as it was. Realistically, beyond that anything a dev adds could be charged for if they wanted, and there'd be nothing you could do but either pay, or dont. What you wont do though, is remove them by trying to justify your initial purchase.

    Actually they released free content in response to the backlash from the community and the media upon release. The reason for this ? Avoiding being grouped with other controversies at the time and not doing anything to damage their reputation further. It's not "I feel" it's instead what actually happened at the time. The alternative if they didn't ? The game most certainly wouldn't be in the position it is now would it.

    This just isn't true though

    Prove me wrong then?

    The developers intent was always to release additional content after release quickly, because they had the foresight to realise they needed to for reasons including the above.

    The proof is in their interviews. Like I said, they've always been pretty open about their plans.

    Datamines doesn't exactly prove anything worth mentioning. Games in general have been datamined to hell since the dawn of time, and it doesn't always lead to anything, or indicate anything other than what could have been, not necessarily what is going to be.

  • @tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @mr-dragon-raaar said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @fractal-pitch there actually was a lot of moaning about the ship skins in elite.
    Probably from the same entitled gamers that are in this thread :)

    I think I own every asp skin released plus ship kits etc. Never bought the lep (that's looking like a good move right now) and have definitely got my money's worth.

    I'd love the ship kit idea for SoT btw.

    Hardly "entitled" is it, when a consumer pays for a product.

    You got what you paid for day 1. Access to the game. That's what you paid for. It's irrelevant what you feel you personally paid for and should have gotten out of it. You bought the product being sold, as is.

    Rare doesn't HAVE to release free content out of necessity because you feel they do. Devs can, have, and will continue to charge full price for titles some people think are massively lacking, and still just leave it at that... it really is just that simple.

    Instead, you paid for the game as it was, and as it was sold. And since then, have had the game you initially paid for expand and change immensely, and still planning to do so, all without requiring you to pay an extra dime for these big game expansions.

    You also bought the product with the knowledge of MTX being in the pipeline, because that was something they did state before release.

    Game wasn't released with pets. We all paid for the game as it was. Realistically, beyond that anything a dev adds could be charged for if they wanted, and there'd be nothing you could do but either pay, or dont. What you wont do though, is remove them by trying to justify your initial purchase.

    Actually they released free content in response to the backlash from the community and the media upon release. The reason for this ? Avoiding being grouped with other controversies at the time and not doing anything to damage their reputation further. It's not "I feel" it's instead what actually happened at the time. The alternative if they didn't ? The game most certainly wouldn't be in the position it is now would it.

    This just isn't true though

    Prove me wrong then?

    The developers intent was always to release additional content after release quickly, because they had the foresight to realise they needed to for reasons including the above.

    The proof is in their interviews. Like I said, they've always been pretty open about their plans.

    Datamines doesn't exactly prove anything worth mentioning. Games in general have been datamined to hell since the dawn of time, and it doesn't always lead to anything, or indicate anything other than what could have been, not necessarily what is going to be.

    Again , please present it.

    Because it sounds like we actually agree on a few things with regards to the release situation and the intent on content.

    [mod edit] the speculation in relation to a lack of content at release and MTX'S being pulled is a pretty strong arguement that rare realised MTX'S wouldn't go down well with the consumer at the time with that In mind. Adding weight to my arguement they didn't want any more negative perception, especially with the climate regarding MTX'S as a whole in gaming during the same time period. Combine that with a severe lack of content and you have got a recipie for disaster.

    The only thing we differ on is weather we welcome MTX'S or not, whilst I can respect your opinion, I am never going to welcome them, especially in a game that sells on the free contents own merits 9 months in with a record number of new and old players.

  • I always had a pet. His name was clukinstien and he was my trusty right hand chicken. Me and my clukinstiens went on many voyages together on the high seas. He would even join me in the tavern for grog at the end of our journey.

    I would pay up to 4.99 for a pet and not a penny more than that.

  • @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I don't see how there could be a debate here.
    The gaming industry always worked like this on similar games.
    The controversy is justified in solo games having MTX like AC: Odyssey, not in multiplayer games like SoT.
    There's no "they don't charge for dlc because they know they couldn't get away with it if they did" argument to have here. For one, you can't possibly know about that and for two, that's just not true.
    Elite: Dangerous "got away with it". This game has MTX for ships skins AND paid extension that fragments the playerbase. They got away with it just fine. I saw nobody in the forums there complaining. And the game was in the same state at launch than SoT was at launch.

    Thinking that the 50-70€ you paid, we all paid, almost 1 year ago will be enough for the game to be updated like it did for another year or plus is just naive. New sells won't be enough to.

    When I paid 70€ one year ago on the MStore, I had no idea that I would fall in love with this game that much. I also had no idea how Rare would be so great at updating the game. Look how the game has grown in 11 months. The game had almost no content 11 months ago and now there's plenty of things to do on the sea. In 11 months, SoT has grown far better than Elite: Dangerous did in 2 years, wich was in a similar state may I recall. And I paid ED 120€ for beta access + lifetime expansion pass. Still had to pay for skins though.

    But I'm not complaining as I've spent 800-1000h in this game alone.
    Same thing for SoT, this game has given so much extraordinary moments that I just need a reason to support the game a little more, like MTX.
    This is how the industry works. We either continue to have free-dlc and pay for some cosmetics MTX, or we don't.


    Now to answer the OP, I'll gladly pay something like 5-15€ for a beautiful pet with awesome interactions. One thing I would find absolutely AMAZING is having a parrot that can repeat some of the words you're saying with a little "parroty" voice. Oh man, I'm laughing just by imagining it !

    No it didn't, there's plenty of games with online multiplayer from last gen that didn't push cosmetic microtransactions.

    Big games like SOT with:
    Servers to run constantly?
    Many huge free updates in 11 months ?
    No charged expansions ?
    No monthly subscription ?
    Being a "game as service" type with no sequel in mind for many years after ?
    A dev team (workers that needs to be paid), that is growing while still working on the same game ?

    Instead of just saying that these games exist, why don't you name one ? Because if the answer is "Yes" to all the questions above, I think you found a game that has revolutionised the inudstry without anybody noticing. Hell, even Blizzard with WOW should take notes and that's an old game.

    Like I said to someone else here, the "free" content is by no means a gesture of goodwill , but Instead much more of a necessity by rare In response to universal negative reception of the game upon it's release. That's irrefutable.

    If they didn't SOT would be in the dumpster already.

    And once again, if overheads were that much of a concern, they would have been better off by delaying the game instead of releasing it 6+ months too early and incurring the costs that go along with having your service go live.

    Thus the onus here is on rare, not the consumer.

    Some of these last gen games with similar server capacities as SOT per instance, that have zero cosmetic microtransactions are still live all these years later. Comparing it to WOW isn't a apples for apples example and instead a bit of a mute one. If I had to make a comparison I would instead compare it to something like GTA 4.

    Yeah right a game with charged expansions then. So not at all a game that fits my description and therefore not at all a good example.
    It's also not a good example as GTA IV wasn't designed around multiplayer and there's no comparison to be made between these two games in terms of... Well everything. Not at all an "apples for apples" example too.

    Free updates being a gesture of good will or not (wich I never said it was ? I just said "free"), they still were free. And they still will be. That's the point here. You're not going to pay more to have more huge content and things to DO in the game. But money still has to come regulary at some point.

  • @combatxkitty I also have a golden chicken named Jeremy, he is a trusty companion. I would also pay 4.99 since that would be enough in my opinion for a pet.

  • @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I don't see how there could be a debate here.
    The gaming industry always worked like this on similar games.
    The controversy is justified in solo games having MTX like AC: Odyssey, not in multiplayer games like SoT.
    There's no "they don't charge for dlc because they know they couldn't get away with it if they did" argument to have here. For one, you can't possibly know about that and for two, that's just not true.
    Elite: Dangerous "got away with it". This game has MTX for ships skins AND paid extension that fragments the playerbase. They got away with it just fine. I saw nobody in the forums there complaining. And the game was in the same state at launch than SoT was at launch.

    Thinking that the 50-70€ you paid, we all paid, almost 1 year ago will be enough for the game to be updated like it did for another year or plus is just naive. New sells won't be enough to.

    When I paid 70€ one year ago on the MStore, I had no idea that I would fall in love with this game that much. I also had no idea how Rare would be so great at updating the game. Look how the game has grown in 11 months. The game had almost no content 11 months ago and now there's plenty of things to do on the sea. In 11 months, SoT has grown far better than Elite: Dangerous did in 2 years, wich was in a similar state may I recall. And I paid ED 120€ for beta access + lifetime expansion pass. Still had to pay for skins though.

    But I'm not complaining as I've spent 800-1000h in this game alone.
    Same thing for SoT, this game has given so much extraordinary moments that I just need a reason to support the game a little more, like MTX.
    This is how the industry works. We either continue to have free-dlc and pay for some cosmetics MTX, or we don't.


    Now to answer the OP, I'll gladly pay something like 5-15€ for a beautiful pet with awesome interactions. One thing I would find absolutely AMAZING is having a parrot that can repeat some of the words you're saying with a little "parroty" voice. Oh man, I'm laughing just by imagining it !

    No it didn't, there's plenty of games with online multiplayer from last gen that didn't push cosmetic microtransactions.

    Big games like SOT with:
    Servers to run constantly?
    Many huge free updates in 11 months ?
    No charged expansions ?
    No monthly subscription ?
    Being a "game as service" type with no sequel in mind for many years after ?
    A dev team (workers that needs to be paid), that is growing while still working on the same game ?

    Instead of just saying that these games exist, why don't you name one ? Because if the answer is "Yes" to all the questions above, I think you found a game that has revolutionised the inudstry without anybody noticing. Hell, even Blizzard with WOW should take notes and that's an old game.

    Like I said to someone else here, the "free" content is by no means a gesture of goodwill , but Instead much more of a necessity by rare In response to universal negative reception of the game upon it's release. That's irrefutable.

    If they didn't SOT would be in the dumpster already.

    And once again, if overheads were that much of a concern, they would have been better off by delaying the game instead of releasing it 6+ months too early and incurring the costs that go along with having your service go live.

    Thus the onus here is on rare, not the consumer.

    Some of these last gen games with similar server capacities as SOT per instance, that have zero cosmetic microtransactions are still live all these years later. Comparing it to WOW isn't a apples for apples example and instead a bit of a mute one. If I had to make a comparison I would instead compare it to something like GTA 4.

    Yeah right a game with charged expansions then. So not at all a game that fits my description and therefore not at all a good example.
    It's also not a good example as GTA IV wasn't designed around multiplayer and there's no comparison to be made between these two games in terms of... Well everything. Not at all an "apples for apples" example too.

    Free updates being a gesture of good will or not (wich I never said it was ? I just said "free"), they still were free. And they still will be. That's the point here. You're not going to pay more to have more huge content and things to DO in the game. But money still has to come regulary at some point.

    Difference being the paid expansions for GTA 4 were also seperate stand alone releases that didn't require the initial purchase of gta4. So actually I would say it's a good example. All of which are still live online with similar instance capacities to SOT.

    And I would also argue that pets would be a great free content addition to pull old players back in and welcome new ones to the community. In Exactly the same vein that many other additions have already proved by boosting sales 9 months in with record player counts.

    It's already proved that it works for them, good exposure plus decent free content equals boosts for them in sales and subscriptions.

    This is why I don't see MTX'S as a necessity for rare but instead sprinkles on the cake for them so to speak.

    The game won't shut down due to not having MTX'S, but will instead because of low interest and player counts.

  • @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I don't see how there could be a debate here.
    The gaming industry always worked like this on similar games.
    The controversy is justified in solo games having MTX like AC: Odyssey, not in multiplayer games like SoT.
    There's no "they don't charge for dlc because they know they couldn't get away with it if they did" argument to have here. For one, you can't possibly know about that and for two, that's just not true.
    Elite: Dangerous "got away with it". This game has MTX for ships skins AND paid extension that fragments the playerbase. They got away with it just fine. I saw nobody in the forums there complaining. And the game was in the same state at launch than SoT was at launch.

    Thinking that the 50-70€ you paid, we all paid, almost 1 year ago will be enough for the game to be updated like it did for another year or plus is just naive. New sells won't be enough to.

    When I paid 70€ one year ago on the MStore, I had no idea that I would fall in love with this game that much. I also had no idea how Rare would be so great at updating the game. Look how the game has grown in 11 months. The game had almost no content 11 months ago and now there's plenty of things to do on the sea. In 11 months, SoT has grown far better than Elite: Dangerous did in 2 years, wich was in a similar state may I recall. And I paid ED 120€ for beta access + lifetime expansion pass. Still had to pay for skins though.

    But I'm not complaining as I've spent 800-1000h in this game alone.
    Same thing for SoT, this game has given so much extraordinary moments that I just need a reason to support the game a little more, like MTX.
    This is how the industry works. We either continue to have free-dlc and pay for some cosmetics MTX, or we don't.


    Now to answer the OP, I'll gladly pay something like 5-15€ for a beautiful pet with awesome interactions. One thing I would find absolutely AMAZING is having a parrot that can repeat some of the words you're saying with a little "parroty" voice. Oh man, I'm laughing just by imagining it !

    No it didn't, there's plenty of games with online multiplayer from last gen that didn't push cosmetic microtransactions.

    Big games like SOT with:
    Servers to run constantly?
    Many huge free updates in 11 months ?
    No charged expansions ?
    No monthly subscription ?
    Being a "game as service" type with no sequel in mind for many years after ?
    A dev team (workers that needs to be paid), that is growing while still working on the same game ?

    Instead of just saying that these games exist, why don't you name one ? Because if the answer is "Yes" to all the questions above, I think you found a game that has revolutionised the inudstry without anybody noticing. Hell, even Blizzard with WOW should take notes and that's an old game.

    Like I said to someone else here, the "free" content is by no means a gesture of goodwill , but Instead much more of a necessity by rare In response to universal negative reception of the game upon it's release. That's irrefutable.

    If they didn't SOT would be in the dumpster already.

    And once again, if overheads were that much of a concern, they would have been better off by delaying the game instead of releasing it 6+ months too early and incurring the costs that go along with having your service go live.

    Thus the onus here is on rare, not the consumer.

    Some of these last gen games with similar server capacities as SOT per instance, that have zero cosmetic microtransactions are still live all these years later. Comparing it to WOW isn't a apples for apples example and instead a bit of a mute one. If I had to make a comparison I would instead compare it to something like GTA 4.

    Yeah right a game with charged expansions then. So not at all a game that fits my description and therefore not at all a good example.
    It's also not a good example as GTA IV wasn't designed around multiplayer and there's no comparison to be made between these two games in terms of... Well everything. Not at all an "apples for apples" example too.

    Free updates being a gesture of good will or not (wich I never said it was ? I just said "free"), they still were free. And they still will be. That's the point here. You're not going to pay more to have more huge content and things to DO in the game. But money still has to come regulary at some point.

    Difference being the paid expansions for GTA 4 were also seperate stand alone releases that didn't require the initial purchase of gta4. So actually I would say it's a good example. All of which are still live online with similar instance capacities to SOT.

    And I would also argue that pets would be a great free content addition to pull old players back in and welcome new ones to the community. In Exactly the same vein that many other additions have already proved by boosting sales 9 months in with record player counts.

    It's already proved that it works for them, good exposure plus decent free content equals boosts for them in sales and subscriptions.

    This is why I don't see MTX'S as a necessity for rare but instead sprinkles on the cake for them so to speak.

    The game won't shut down due to not having MTX'S, but will instead because of low interest and player counts.

    It doesn't change the fact that these expansions were not free and were sources of income for the devs to continue maintaining the servers and the game up to date.
    Yeah if you didn't want to pay more you weren't forced to pay those expansions and you could continue to play the original Online. But the community is therefore fragmented.
    Same thing for MTX, you don't have to buy them. Only difference is on one hand you must pay to have true new content and on the other you don't have to pay more to have the same things. And if you want more sparkles, you actually can by buying those sparkles. But you're not forced to and you'll still get the full experience.

    I'm an old player returning to the game and I assure you that pets aren't what's driving me. But I get your point. I just find it pretty naive, no offense. I don't see, economically, how it can be done. And I'm still waiting for a good example. GTA 4 isn't a good one. Not the same audience, not the same scope, not the same genre, a huge old franchise, not the same budget etc.

  • @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells a dit dans How much would you pay for a pet? :

    @fractal-pitch said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I don't see how there could be a debate here.
    The gaming industry always worked like this on similar games.
    The controversy is justified in solo games having MTX like AC: Odyssey, not in multiplayer games like SoT.
    There's no "they don't charge for dlc because they know they couldn't get away with it if they did" argument to have here. For one, you can't possibly know about that and for two, that's just not true.
    Elite: Dangerous "got away with it". This game has MTX for ships skins AND paid extension that fragments the playerbase. They got away with it just fine. I saw nobody in the forums there complaining. And the game was in the same state at launch than SoT was at launch.

    Thinking that the 50-70€ you paid, we all paid, almost 1 year ago will be enough for the game to be updated like it did for another year or plus is just naive. New sells won't be enough to.

    When I paid 70€ one year ago on the MStore, I had no idea that I would fall in love with this game that much. I also had no idea how Rare would be so great at updating the game. Look how the game has grown in 11 months. The game had almost no content 11 months ago and now there's plenty of things to do on the sea. In 11 months, SoT has grown far better than Elite: Dangerous did in 2 years, wich was in a similar state may I recall. And I paid ED 120€ for beta access + lifetime expansion pass. Still had to pay for skins though.

    But I'm not complaining as I've spent 800-1000h in this game alone.
    Same thing for SoT, this game has given so much extraordinary moments that I just need a reason to support the game a little more, like MTX.
    This is how the industry works. We either continue to have free-dlc and pay for some cosmetics MTX, or we don't.


    Now to answer the OP, I'll gladly pay something like 5-15€ for a beautiful pet with awesome interactions. One thing I would find absolutely AMAZING is having a parrot that can repeat some of the words you're saying with a little "parroty" voice. Oh man, I'm laughing just by imagining it !

    No it didn't, there's plenty of games with online multiplayer from last gen that didn't push cosmetic microtransactions.

    Big games like SOT with:
    Servers to run constantly?
    Many huge free updates in 11 months ?
    No charged expansions ?
    No monthly subscription ?
    Being a "game as service" type with no sequel in mind for many years after ?
    A dev team (workers that needs to be paid), that is growing while still working on the same game ?

    Instead of just saying that these games exist, why don't you name one ? Because if the answer is "Yes" to all the questions above, I think you found a game that has revolutionised the inudstry without anybody noticing. Hell, even Blizzard with WOW should take notes and that's an old game.

    Like I said to someone else here, the "free" content is by no means a gesture of goodwill , but Instead much more of a necessity by rare In response to universal negative reception of the game upon it's release. That's irrefutable.

    If they didn't SOT would be in the dumpster already.

    And once again, if overheads were that much of a concern, they would have been better off by delaying the game instead of releasing it 6+ months too early and incurring the costs that go along with having your service go live.

    Thus the onus here is on rare, not the consumer.

    Some of these last gen games with similar server capacities as SOT per instance, that have zero cosmetic microtransactions are still live all these years later. Comparing it to WOW isn't a apples for apples example and instead a bit of a mute one. If I had to make a comparison I would instead compare it to something like GTA 4.

    Yeah right a game with charged expansions then. So not at all a game that fits my description and therefore not at all a good example.
    It's also not a good example as GTA IV wasn't designed around multiplayer and there's no comparison to be made between these two games in terms of... Well everything. Not at all an "apples for apples" example too.

    Free updates being a gesture of good will or not (wich I never said it was ? I just said "free"), they still were free. And they still will be. That's the point here. You're not going to pay more to have more huge content and things to DO in the game. But money still has to come regulary at some point.

    Difference being the paid expansions for GTA 4 were also seperate stand alone releases that didn't require the initial purchase of gta4. So actually I would say it's a good example. All of which are still live online with similar instance capacities to SOT.

    And I would also argue that pets would be a great free content addition to pull old players back in and welcome new ones to the community. In Exactly the same vein that many other additions have already proved by boosting sales 9 months in with record player counts.

    It's already proved that it works for them, good exposure plus decent free content equals boosts for them in sales and subscriptions.

    This is why I don't see MTX'S as a necessity for rare but instead sprinkles on the cake for them so to speak.

    The game won't shut down due to not having MTX'S, but will instead because of low interest and player counts.

    It doesn't change the fact that these expansions were not free and were sources of income for the devs to continue maintaining the servers and the game up to date.
    Yeah if you didn't want to pay more you weren't forced to pay those expansions and you could continue to play the original Online. But the community is therefore fragmented.
    Same thing for MTX, you don't have to buy them. Only difference is on one hand you must pay to have true new content and on the other you don't have to pay more to have the same things. And if you want more sparkles, you actually can by buying those sparkles. But you're not forced to and you'll still get the full experience.

    I'm an old player returning to the game and I assure you that pets aren't what's driving me. But I get your point. I just find it pretty naive, no offense. I don't see, economically, how it can be done. And I'm still waiting for a good example. GTA 4 isn't a good one. Not the same audience, not the same scope, not the same genre, a huge old franchise, not the same budget etc.

    No offense taken, but like I said they've literally already proved it can be done with rare's own admissions of high new and old player counts 9 months and beyond. It's irrefutable.

    The proof is there, and therefore hardly a "naive" point of view when I can show the methodology I proposed in this thread has continued to be successful for them by their own admissions.

    Furthermore adding credence that at this point MTX'S aren't a necessity for them, I would probably be more compassionate about it if the player base was severely declining, but it isn't, it's increasing and by default sales and subscriptions increase and thus revenue is earned.

    Anything else on top of that is a extra and therefore not a necessity.

  • I find the discussion in here to be a little odd.

    Rare stated, prior to release that they would be including MTX, so why people now feel the need to argue against it is beyond me... We all knew what we were getting into when we bought the game.
    We all knew prior to release what would and wouldn't be in the final game more than likely from the various tests the public could access in those last few weeks of development.
    We all also know that the content was put on hold for a while to try and give the game a little more content. Fair enough.

    Saying the game doesn't need them is a little odd... Rare can implement what they a want and folk can choose to buy or not to buy.
    Heck... MTX are ALREADY in the game - there have been a whole plethora of in-game items linked to real-world transactions SINCE LAUNCH!

    IF you don't like MTX - don't buy any! End of! Move on! It wont stop them developing the game for you, you will just miss out on a few cosmetics - so what? So have most other folk who didn't have spare cash to buy stuff from the store when an event was on!

  • @sshteeve said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I find the discussion in here to be a little odd.

    Rare stated, prior to release that they would be including MTX, so why people now feel the need to argue against it is beyond me... We all knew what we were getting into when we bought the game.
    We all knew prior to release what would and wouldn't be in the final game more than likely from the various tests the public could access in those last few weeks of development.
    We all also know that the content was put on hold for a while to try and give the game a little more content. Fair enough.

    Saying the game doesn't need them is a little odd... Rare can implement what they a want and folk can choose to buy or not to buy.
    Heck... MTX are ALREADY in the game - there have been a whole plethora of in-game items linked to real-world transactions SINCE LAUNCH!

    IF you don't like MTX - don't buy any! End of! Move on! It wont stop them developing the game for you, you will just miss out on a few cosmetics - so what? So have most other folk who didn't have spare cash to buy stuff from the store when an event was on!

    Unfortunately for you trying to squash other people's opinions in this manner regardless of rare's initial intent won't work in a thread asking how much you will pay for a MTX.

    With regards to intent, feedback can also give credibility to potential changes on that initial intent. It's how it work's.

    This method has changed intent in many other things within this community before and will potentially continue to do so on a case to case basis.

    We can agree to disagree, but trying to tell people it ain't gonna change, when feedback potentially can, is a bit silly.

  • @troubled-cells constantly arguing the same point on a thread as you have is as well. I think you'll find I am not squashing anyone's opinions, I am expressing my own.
    I wouldn't break the Pirate Code - all Pirates are equal after all.

    I have made my point about Micro transactions as well and refuse to be drawn into an argument for the above reasons, so i'll bid you good day.

    👋

  • @sshteeve said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells constantly arguing the same point on a thread as you have is as well. I think you'll find I am not squashing anyone's opinions, I am expressing my own.
    I wouldn't break the Pirate Code - all Pirates are equal after all.

    I have made my point about Micro transactions as well and refuse to be drawn into an argument for the above reasons, so i'll bid you good day.

    👋

    Telling someone to move on from a game if they don't like MTX'S as opposed to voicing their opinions In a relevant thread is pretty much a squash pal.

    Have a nice day.

  • @troubled-cells Oh I will!

    And for the OP - @Quicksilver7723 I am sure I have stated before, but it must've been another thread.
    I'd be willing to pay up to about £10 for a pet (with varying levels of skin or rarity).
    As others have said I would expect there to be a free version of the pet in the game as well for all to get hold of, so as not to leave out folk who either refuse to buy for personal reasons and beliefs on the matter, or simply because they may not be able to afford it.

    I would expect each version to act in the same way, yet for the cosmetic differences to show with each varying price-point. Very much how all Pirates can have the same ships and weapons, but different skins.

  • @sshteeve That isnt a bad idea. I agree with you. I think there should be pets that you can buy with gold and other pets that can be bought with cash. Maybe they can even have pets that cost like 50,000 gold and for people who dont want to spend that much gold or do not have that much gold they can just buy it. Just a thought.

  • @drbullhammer said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    I just adopted a cat for $55, so I'd be willing to pay upward of $55.

    55 for a cat?? That's cheap!
    My big cat cost us a few hundred pounds!

  • @troubled-cells Some of your posts have been edited as they go against the Forum Rules.

    Posting Unreleased Content / Hacking Data Files

    Do not share data-mined information as the post will be removed and a warning issued. Ignoring the warning will result in a permanent ban.

  • @triheadedmonkey said in How much would you pay for a pet?:

    @troubled-cells Some of your posts have been edited as they go against the Forum Rules.

    Posting Unreleased Content / Hacking Data Files

    Do not share data-mined information as the post will be removed and a warning issued. Ignoring the warning will result in a permanent ban.

    My apologies

    Rare may wish to edit the "Posting Unreleased Content" section though as this entire thread is centred around content that is unreleased, as have many more on this forum.

    On another note which pets are people hoping to get?

206
Posts
70.7k
Views
1 out of 206