Do you think with annualized expansions, they should cost less?

[Deleted]

OP, dream all you want, but cheaper xpacs are not gonna happen, at least not any significant price cut. FYI, Blizzard is a business venture, not a hippy-happy nonprofit organisation dedicated to giving you as cheap enjoyment as possible. Since a primary reason for faster xpacs is obviously that Blizzard wants to make more money (partly to compensate for making less money from fewer subscriptions), why would they lower the price just to be nice? Takes away the reason for, and the incentive for, speeding up the production times of new xpacs by expanding the team and so on.

[Steampunk]

i dont see why people seem to think this. other than a race and class we are getting more content then ever before in wod

Objectively speaking, we're not sure *what* we're getting yet, besides a new feature (Garrisons) and a typical new continent.

Blizzard admitted that two features for MoP were not implemented yet. One was scrapped, one has been thrown back into development.

When a company does that and is continually avoidant and unapologetic towards its fanbase; it's easy for the public to feel the way apepi does.

I personally don't, but I understand it.

[IzoGray]

OP, dream all you want, but cheaper xpacs are not gonna happen, at least not any significant price cut. FYI, Blizzard is a business venture, not a hippy-happy nonprofit organisation dedicated to giving you as cheap enjoyment as possible. Since a primary reason for faster xpacs is obviously that Blizzard wants to make more money (partly to compensate for making less money from fewer subscriptions), why would they lower the price just to be nice? Takes away the reason for, and the incentive for, speeding up the production times of new xpacs by expanding the team and so on.

You're dreaming if you think the majority of the player base would be them. People are not that stupid and willing to get pushed around. Case in point, half of their subscribers already left. People don't feel obligated to play this game. Therea is other stuff out there.

[Rusken]

As soon as we get an expansion annually, sure they should cost less. As it is we'll not be seeing this one for at least 6 months, probably closer to 2 years of MoP than annually. Either way I'm all for cheaper expansions. That said I believe their goal for quicker expansions comes from a bigger dev team, rather than less content.

Also; get a job if $40 + $15 a month is out of your budget

[Rumblecrush]

How about discounts based on skill. 1 dollar per month off your sub for every heroic boss killed.

[Ragashii]

I think that if they plan on releasing annual expansions then they either need to be cheaper or provide you with a free month of game time for the purchase.

[lokatii]

How about discounts based on skill. 1 dollar per month off your sub for every heroic boss killed.

I know you're trolling but I'll bite. Killing heroic bosses doesn't mean you have skill. We carry people all the time.

[JoeShmo]

As soon as we get an expansion annually, sure they should cost less. As it is we'll not be seeing this one for at least 6 months, probably closer to 2 years of MoP than annually. Either way I'm all for cheaper expansions. That said I believe their goal for quicker expansions comes from a bigger dev team, rather than less content.

Also; get a job if $40 + $15 a month is out of your budget

Im sure you would whine like a baby if your McRib cost you $40 + $15 a month...

...oh wait thats well within your budget, so no you wouldnt, youd gladly pay it.

[Jessicka]

It absolutely should be cheaper.

At present an expansion is buying 18 months to 2 years of content which covers 3 tiers. Annual expansions can't really offer more than 2 tiers and so necessarily won't have as much content within their lifetime of relevence. The cost should be cut by at least 30% with that in mind.

[Deleted]

They should be free really, as in all expansions ever should be free.

[Deleted]

Expansions should last 2 years, cheaper 1 year expansions aren't a good idea. No point in gearing up your chars if the gear becomes worthless soon anyway. Slower content is better.

[Iritolus]

Alright the thing is your $60 for a new expansion has nothing to do with how many tiers it includes. The amount of patches/raid content as well as maintaining servers, bug fixes, support and such is covered mostly by your $15 subscription fee. Therefor if you have 1 less raid tier, aren't paying subscription for those months you're missing and that's where you are "getting the expansion cheaper".

What your $60 does cover is the development of the launch product of the expansion, all the quest development, world design, initial raid content, new features and pretty much anything else shipped with the initial release of the expansion.

So I personally feel that $60 each year for a new expansion is completely justifiable.

[Deleted]

OP, dream all you want, but cheaper xpacs are not gonna happen, at least not any significant price cut. FYI, Blizzard is a business venture, not a hippy-happy nonprofit organisation dedicated to giving you as cheap enjoyment as possible. Since a primary reason for faster xpacs is obviously that Blizzard wants to make more money (partly to compensate for making less money from fewer subscriptions), why would they lower the price just to be nice? Takes away the reason for, and the incentive for, speeding up the production times of new xpacs by expanding the team and so on.

Wanting Blizzard to charge a fair price for their products means you think they should be a ' hippy-happy nonprofit organisation'? If Blizzard have the attitude they can charge more for less then they deserve to lose business.

[cptaylor38]

i dont see why people seem to think this. other than a race and class we are getting more content then ever before in wod

- - - Updated - - -



if we get patches every 3 months instead of every 6 months how is that less content? they didnt JUST say yearly expansions they also said 2 to 3 month patches

Other than a new continent and garrisons what content are we getting that you actually have to buy the expansion for? Everything else is free and comes in the prepatch whether you buy the expansion or not?

[yjmark]

The speed we get expansions is not what you should be focusing on. It's how much content each expansion gives. I would have to say that each expansion has given "roughly" the same amount of content, so there is no real reason for lowering costs.

- - - Updated - - -

Other than a new continent and garrisons what content are we getting that you actually have to buy the expansion for? Everything else is free and comes in the prepatch whether you buy the expansion or not?

Nothing is free. Pre-patch stuff is part of expansion development costs to Blizzard. Hence, you will pay for it.

[Chickat]

I pay ~$12 per month for a sub (six month installments). 12x12=144. So that's $184 for a year of WoW, sub and expansion together. Now let's assume the average non-WoW game lasts me one month (that's being pretty generous) and costs $60. That's $720 for a year of entertainment. Or maybe I'm a Nintendo fanboy and all of my games cost $40 each. That's $480 per year.

In terms of time spent versus money invested, it's still heavily weighted in WoW's favor.

Word!! 10 characters.

[shise]

I don't see where people get the "smaller" from, might be mostly new players but anyways...
I agree on the price. Payed 1650 euros or so so far for the game, I think they should lower prices on X packs.