Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[heef]

Are you retarded?

Well, at the very least he's not daft and delusional enough to think that a popular change.org petition means anything will actually change.

[Deleted]

They already have. Time and time again. This issue is moot.

Literally autism

[Gadzooks]

Closure of Nos has reached the BBC news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36044000

How long do they keep burying their heads before they have to address the issue?

LOL.

Look, in the real world, in the world of adults, companies do not talk about pending lawsuits. Their lawyers instruct them not to. If you think Blizzard is going to make a single statement about this, before the lawsuit is concluded, you are seriously deluded and naive.

And anyway, this is between Blizzard and the people they're suing. They don't owe you squat.

[Wiqd]

This has to be repeated every couple of pages.

It's not theft, it's infringement, it's two separate legal distinctions.

The server is the tool that allows the infringement to occur, which is accessing the content in the client. You can't do that, without permission from Blizzard.

Capice?

Alright, I'm good with that explanation. I still think it's funny that Blizzard chooses this path while Daybreak has chosen a different path: namely allowing an EQ Pserver to exist and THEN building their own version of legacy servers in the TLP servers, which are among the most populated servers EQ has. Again, I just think Blizzard is too proud to admit that people don't like what they've done over the years and want to play an older version of the game. One of their arguments for not allowing transmogging (before it came out) was because they didn't want to devalue the time / effort their artists / modelers did for the new series of armor they were putting into whatever expansion it was. That and they wanted the gear to be visible for people to show off, or something. They couldn't fathom that some people didn't like what they were doing. The same thing appears true here as well.

[Tuesdays]

That's the part that's being willfully ignored. Every signature does not equal a paying account. It just means someone took 30 seconds to fill in a web form.

That they think Blizzard is dumb enough to make that connection is hilarious.

Yeah, you missed the argument where some think legacy should be included in retail, because paying more is dumb, but some how this leads to massive profits.

[Gadzooks]

Yeah, you missed the argument where some think legacy should be included in retail, because paying more is dumb, but some how this leads to massive profits.

The magical thinking in this thread has been very entertaining - it continues to deliver and deliver and deliver.

[Nostratdamnedus]

Even if your ridiculous correlation had any merit ... 150k active over a 10-day period.
So there's still time.

But don't worry after it reaches 150k you'll always be able to say, "hey they had 800k registered accounts, where's the other 650k?"

not to mention Nostalrius was not an American server, officially the language was English but it wasnt really enforced. Many Chinese, Russians, Danes, etc. etc. speak in their own language. Its great there is a petition to blizzard about nostalrius, but its in english btw

[A dot Ham]

This word, strawman, I don't think it means what you think it does.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

His "challenge" of my calling them criminals is ultimately irrelevant. At best since no judgement or details of the lawsuit have been released, they would be alleged criminals.

Ultimately though, we are addressing the issue of "they would have no reason to lie" (they being Nost) and that is what I am addressing. They have EVERY reason to lie.

Copyright infringement will not be up for debate. The act was committed, they received money (nominal or not, covering costs or just profit, they received money). The simple act of receiving ANY money puts them in a position to be guilty of "ordinary" or "willful" copyright infringement. Both can result in penalties of jail time in addition to fines.

Nostralius's strategy is to play the humanitarian card. Rally support of its users, and its plea to Blizzard. They are going to try for "innocent" copyright infringement which carries the lowest of any penalty.

His strawman was an attempt to draw me into a debate of whether or not these proceedings would be criminal or civil in nature. If he can defeat me there, then in his mind, addressing whether or not the (Nost) would have a reason to lie would be irrelevant.

I really shouldn't have to spell some of this out for you guys. There is just this mound of shit to sort through here, and way to many people posting opinions, that are just that... opinions. Very little of what is posted in the last 800 pages has any basis in fact. All of it is pure speculation. None of us have the real numbers or tools that actually would matter in an argument like this. So yes, some speculations come closer to the mark than others, but its still speculation.

What is even more disturbing is the intellectual dishonesty being committed here which is ultimately trolling and the majority are too ill informed to notice.

So again, when faced with jail time an alleged criminal would have nothing to lie about would they?

[Gadzooks]

Alright, I'm good with that explanation. I still think it's funny that Blizzard chooses this path while Daybreak has chosen a different path: namely allowing an EQ Pserver to exist and THEN building their own version of legacy servers in the TLP servers, which are among the most populated servers EQ has. Again, I just think Blizzard is too proud to admit that people don't like what they've done over the years and want to play an older version of the game. One of their arguments for not allowing transmogging (before it came out) was because they didn't want to devalue the time / effort their artists / modelers did for the new series of armor they were putting into whatever expansion it was. That and they wanted the gear to be visible for people to show off, or something. They couldn't fathom that some people didn't like what they were doing. The same thing appears true here as well.

Blizzard has given reasons why they don't want to.

A. It's too expensive.
B. They don't want to maintain two separate versions of the same game.
C. They look forward, not backward.

This thread, other than the side arguments and misconceptions about the legal aspects, had been a small handful of posters throwing a temper tantrum because they don't like Blizzard's answers.

You can not like what they're doing all you want - I unsubbed last year, after seeing how creatively bankrupt WOD was, and I see no reason to play Legion. But i don't demand they roll back the game and redo Wrath, my favorite expansion. I was fortunate, I played vanilla when it was new, and I understand, that game is gone. Others may not have been fortunate, but it's a harsh world, get a helmet, just because you missed out doesnt mean you're entitled to it now. (In general, not you specifically.)

Everything else is a tantrum.

[Kolvarg]

Yeah, you missed the argument where some think legacy should be included in retail, because paying more is dumb, but some how this leads to massive profits.

A separate subscription for legacy realms as a "premium" service would defenitely attract a lot less people, but not every decision regarding WoW is or should be done only for the goal of "massive profits" directly.

If it was included in the standart subscription sure it wouldn't be directly very profitable, but it would increase the value of the subscription for the player. You'd get more while paying the same. And that can defenitely keep more people playing for longer, so there's defenitely value and likely profit there.

What I find funny is you don't generally see people questioning wether or not it's "profitable" to add a new raid or a new zone to the game in a patch, not at this scale at least. It's mostly just sheer negative bias of people who don't seem to be able to face the fact that some people like different things than them and that that's completly ok.

They'd rather come up with reasons why it would be unprofitable or not worth Blizzard's investment, than let people who enjoy legacy realms have them. It's literally defending why Blizzard should NOT offer more content/service for the same money, it's insane.

[Tuesdays]

The magical thinking in this thread has been very entertaining - it continues to deliver and deliver and deliver.

I think the actual lack of thought is far more entertaining.

Reminds me of when my kids were young, and excuse making was new to them. How the world works from there view is laughable, but it's even funnier when they try to explain it.

OT: They are being exploited as news, and views, all while it is being swept under the rug of "Lasts months drama".

- - - Updated - - -

A separate subscription for legacy realms as a "premium" service would defenitely attract a lot less people, but not every decision regarding WoW is or should be done only for the goal of "massive profits"

Since when is Blizzard a nonprofit organization?

[Kolvarg]

Since when is Blizzard a nonprofit organization?

Where did I say it was?

Just because it doesn't directly generate massive profits, doesn't mean it can be good for the company/product and generate money in the process.

Do stores become nonprofit for doing sales?
Is sony nonprofit for selling consoles for cheaper than they cost to built?
Is steam nonprofit for selling games at 50% and 75%?
Is Blizzard non-profit because they offer "free" content in the form of patches?

Read, pelase.

[Wries]

Blizzard has given reasons why they don't want to.

A. It's too expensive.
B. They don't want to maintain two separate versions of the same game.
C. They look forward, not backward.

This thread, other than the side arguments and misconceptions about the legal aspects, had been a small handful of posters throwing a temper tantrum because they don't like Blizzard's answers.

You can not like what they're doing all you want - I unsubbed last year, after seeing how creatively bankrupt WOD was, and I see no reason to play Legion. But i don't demand they roll back the game and redo Wrath, my favorite expansion. I was fortunate, I played vanilla when it was new, and I understand, that game is gone. Others may not have been fortunate, but it's a harsh world, get a helmet, just because you missed out doesnt mean you're entitled to it now. (In general, not you specifically.)

Everything else is a tantrum.

While I think they totally could pull off a Vanilla server and make a profit on it, I still think the main thing to take note of is how the main game have had its sub-numbers drop at a steady pace, while their previous game (ie an introduction of a properly scripted Vanilla server) with a much different design philosophy was gaining popularity, even despite the fact that it couldn't be commercially promoted in any way and simply got popular by worth of mouth.

This, alongside with a certain previous employee trying to put as nicely as he can that he thinks the end-game design has gotten worse and worse, surely must have gotten some heads at blizzard to start thinking. Is instant-access of every piece of gameplay really such a valid model for a modern MMO as they thought it was?

[Deleted]

They'd rather come up with reasons why it would be unprofitable or not worth Blizzard's investment, than let people who enjoy legacy realms have them.

A lot of people seem to think, Blizz would only need to pull a magic copy of vanilla from a shelf and install it on a server :/
So some tried to explain that its not that easy.

What I find funny is you don't generally see people questioning wether or not it's "profitable" to add a new raid or a new zone to the game in a patch, not at this scale at least.

Well its a proven concept. They have done it for like 10 years.

[Gadzooks]

A separate subscription for legacy realms as a "premium" service would defenitely attract a lot less people, but not every decision regarding WoW is or should be done only for the goal of "massive profits" directly.

If it was included in the standart subscription sure it wouldn't be directly very profitable, but it would increase the value of the subscription for the player. You'd get more while playing less. And that can defenitely keep more people playing for long, so there's defenitely profit there.

What I find funny is you don't generally see people questioning wether or not it's "profitable" to add a new raid or a new zone to the game in a patch, not at this scale at least. It's mostly just sheer negative bias of people who don't seem to be able to face the fact that some people like different things than them and that that's completly ok.

They'd rather come up with reasons why it would be unprofitable or not worth Blizzard's investment, than let people who enjoy that have legacy realms have them. It's literally defending why Blizzard should NOT offer more content/service for the same money, it's insane.

This whole conversation is like trying to set the price of an entry ticket to Disneyland, without considering the cost of building the actual park.

The whole thing has been an amusing look into the minds of kids, who think they know how business works. When confronted with the actual costs of building a legacy server, they either claim Blizzard is lying and it's "trivial', or they think it's all do-able with the monthly fee. Or they just flat out ignore that cost, or think Blizzard should just throw several million dollars into the toilet, to appease them.

You cannot discuss creating legacy realms without discussing the cost of building them. It's not your money, it's Blizzards, and if they don't think it's worth spending, your demands don't enter into it. I know that's not what your ego wants to hear, but it's reality. Your post boils down to a plea on your behalf for Blizzard to ignore actual costs to make YOU happy - and I'm sorry, that's not how the world operates, and if you think it does, you're in for a rude awakening.

[A dot Ham]

Where did I say it was?

Just because it doesn't directly generate massive profits, doesn't mean it can be good for the company/product and generate money in the process.

Do stores become nonprofit for doing sales?
Is sony nonprofit for selling consoles for cheaper than they cost to built?
Is steam nonprofit for selling games at 50% and 75%?
Is Blizzard non-profit because they offer "free" content in the form of patches?

Read, pelase.

Complete lack of understanding of the purpose behind those low costs and the business strategy therein.

You aren't truly naive enough to believe they do so at of the goodness of their heart for YOUR benefit and entertainment are you?

[Eveningforest]

Blizzard has given reasons why they don't want to.

A. It's too expensive.
B. They don't want to maintain two separate versions of the same game.
C. They look forward, not backward.

This thread, other than the side arguments and misconceptions about the legal aspects, had been a small handful of posters throwing a temper tantrum because they don't like Blizzard's answers.

You can not like what they're doing all you want - I unsubbed last year, after seeing how creatively bankrupt WOD was, and I see no reason to play Legion. But i don't demand they roll back the game and redo Wrath, my favorite expansion. I was fortunate, I played vanilla when it was new, and I understand, that game is gone. Others may not have been fortunate, but it's a harsh world, get a helmet, just because you missed out doesnt mean you're entitled to it now. (In general, not you specifically.)

Everything else is a tantrum.

I cannot disagree with this. I was also fortunate enough to be there at the very start, but I still enjoy Vanilla Wow today. I have a busy life as well, several hobbies and like playing all kinds of games but WOW will always be a game I like to return to.

Since the current state of the game is not enjoyable to me, I play the versions which are enjoyable. If Blizzard ever offers official legacy servers, I'll be more than happy to pay to play there. Until then, I will continue to donate to private servers that provide me with that service.

I also find no reason to be overly emotional about any of this. I will just continue to vote with my wallet.

[Gadzooks]

Where did I say it was?

Just because it doesn't directly generate massive profits, doesn't mean it can be good for the company/product and generate money in the process.

Do stores become nonprofit for doing sales?
Is sony nonprofit for selling consoles for cheaper than they cost to built?
Is steam nonprofit for selling games at 50% and 75%?
Is Blizzard non-profit because they offer "free" content in the form of patches?

Read, pelase.

Sales are selling items cheaper, but still above the cost they paid to get the goods. That's basic retail, and irrelevant to this.

Sony treats their consoles as loss leaders. Blizzard uses the trial accounts the same. This is irrelevant to this.

The cost of selling a game is based on what they split with the publisher, and what they keep. Sales usually still make them more money than what they owe the publisher. Irrelevant to this.

Content patches are no "free" - they are paid for when you buy the expansion.

I read just fine - but you seem to have fundamental misunderstandings about how commerce works.

- - - Updated - - -

While I think they totally could pull off a Vanilla server and make a profit on it, I still think the main thing to take note of is how the main game have had its sub-numbers drop at a steady pace, while their previous game (ie an introduction of a properly scripted Vanilla server) with a much different design philosophy was gaining popularity, even despite the fact that it couldn't be commercially promoted in any way and simply got popular by worth of mouth.

This, alongside with a certain previous employee trying to put as nicely as he can that he thinks the end-game design has gotten worse and worse, surely must have gotten some heads at blizzard to start thinking. Is instant-access of every piece of gameplay really such a valid model for a modern MMO as they thought it was?

Well, Blizzard disagrees. It's their call, not yours, and nobody is asking you to change their minds, or make a case for it.

[Taeldorian]

Yeah so moot infact that the biggest news outlet in the world has an article about it and there's a petition with 100k signatures

Are you retarded?

When calling people retarded, make sure you're not retarded yourself. Life lessons on MMO-C, eh? A petition is meaningless, and will do nothing. I'd love to know how many of those 100k people have played WoW, or would even pay for WoW (either a legacy server or WoW as it is now), how many of those people would create a profit for Blizzard? Since you can't provide that answer to anyone, than this petition is meaningless and will have no effect on Blizzard.

[AeneasBK]

I also find no reason to be overly emotional about any of this. I will just continue to vote with my wallet.

I think that is something a lot of the people who get riled by the legacy discussion either ignore or are unaware of. People say things like "The only thing on offer is retail, take it or leave it you're not getting legacy servers" and people's reaction off the forums is simply to go and play legacy WoW anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Sales are selling items cheaper, but still above the cost they paid to get the goods. That's basic retail, and irrelevant to this.

You work in retail?