Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Coconut]

- Vanilla is included in both TBC and Wrath, so it will be easier to iterate on later expansions once this one is integrated. Basically lower development cost, and since it's something that will go on a trial, it's the smart choice. You could argue that the code is older, but Wow ran with the same code until very recently with MoP. Ultimately, there's less content to encode in Vanilla than in the other two.

Actually, I think the more recent the expansion, the easier it is, because it's that much closer to the current game, and MoP for example would even work on their hardware with no issues. They might even have backup code for it.

[Pann]

Oh, okay. I have to wait and so does everyone else who does not like vanilla. But as long as you get what you want its okay. Or to the point that this whole thing is nothing but a giant temper tantrum from children. Thank you for proving my point again.

If you want legacy servers for another expansion then why not ask for them? Blizzard are perfectly capable of running multiple versions if they wish, it may well be that later expansions are easier to implement. Why do you think this is a valid argument against vanilla servers?

[Coconut]

1. Technicalities cannot be argued against. Yours will come, if you can't wait, then you're not mature enough to play mature games in the first place. Which makes you part of a very toxic minority.
2. Same as 1.
3. Same as 1 and 2.
4. Not an opinion. Vanilla require less work to implement, so it's only logical that they start with the easiest - and first.

Oh, if it's a matter of being mature enough to wait, it's likely Blizzard will consider legacy realms once the game runs its natural life course and they stop releasing expansions. Maybe 10 years from now, maybe a bit more.

At the very least, they won't be likely to go after pirates then.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

My poll works very much like a multiple option poll, because, for the most part, one answers includes the previous ones, and this is something I took into account when analyzing it. 1.12.1 Vanilla voter will no doubt be happy with each of the other options. Progressive Vanilla will be happy everything besides 1.12.1 from the start, etc. The only difference (and why it wasn't multi-option) is time-bubble vs multi-expansion.

Free upward transfers or "having both servers" are "solutions" that further increase the complexity of a system which Blizzard has already called "a logistical nightmare" in their Wall of No. It does nothing to deal with the issue of a segregated player base that would come from having multiple versions of the game available at the same time, and it would wildly affect server populations among the legacy groups, which is why we don't have free transfers on regular servers. This is just a hot air solution you make up on the spot without considering the implications.

Also, what if legacy Vanilla works, and people demand BC, Wrath, MoP, etc, heavily, and then the community split breaks the camel's back and turns all of this into a very bad decision? It should be analyzed from the start if the game would be able to support multiple legacy realms if we're gonna bring one up.

I'm not arguing about your poll anymore. It's been beaten to death, resurrected, beaten once more, re-resurrected, crucified, stuffed, embalmed, re-re-resurrected and burned on the public stake.

Free upward transfers or "having both servers" are "solutions" that further increase the complexity of a system which Blizzard has already called "a logistical nightmare" in their Wall of No. It does nothing to deal with the issue of a segregated player base that would come from having multiple versions of the game available at the same time, and it would wildly affect server populations among the legacy groups, which is why we don't have free transfers on regular servers. This is just a hot air solution you make up on the spot without considering the implications.

This is a matter of database transfers. Much, much easier than recoding a system to fit with the newer tech. You misunderstand which part they spoke of when they spoke of "logistical nightmare". Don't forget that character PTR copy exist since... the first PTR. It's already there and it's definitely not as complicated as you make it to be. As for the population issue, I'm speaking of character copy - and I also said that servers could merge when the numbers will inevitably fall down. This mean the possibility to reuse hardware for more recent releases.

For your last point, nothing is impossible in game development. It's about the cost and the time it takes, which is why this whole debate is there in the first place. Yes, it's something to take in consideration; but that's also why there needs to be a test out there in the first place.

Oh, okay. I have to wait and so does everyone else who does not like vanilla. But as long as you get what you want its okay. Or to the point that this whole thing is nothing but a giant temper tantrum from children. Thank you for proving my point again.

I really enjoy how you assume I want vanilla. Actually, I'd prefer TBC. But I understand how these things works, and I know the technicalities and the technology behind it. So instead of being a spoiled brat, I go with what is logically feasible. Like a huge majority of gamers, by the way. For some reason, your vision is extremely narrowed as "People showing Blizzard there's interest in a product they could make" and "Being a toxic minority who never gets satisfied of anything.

Thanks for disproving your point by assuming what I think.

Ad you know this... HOW? I'd rather play TBC than vanilla. Why should I wait on a progressive server? Why should someone who loved LK wait 4 years? Why not launch them all at once? WHYYYYYY?????

You've all been heard. The answer's been No for years. You're not interested in being heard anymore, you're like little children stamping their feet because Dad said No and they really want it to be Yes.

I know this as anyone with a brain does; toxicity is a minority. I remember an article from Riot Games showing statistics about toxicity in community; unsurprisingly, it's a very small percentage. Here it is: http://kotaku.com/league-of-legends-...ior-1636894289

So, you have a point to make beside generalizing a community?

An adult might see how the cost might be adding up here............

And how the profits might coincidentally go higher.

Oh, if it's a matter of being mature enough to wait, it's likely Blizzard will consider legacy realms once the game runs its natural life course and they stop releasing expansions. Maybe 10 years from now, maybe a bit more.

At the very least, they won't be likely to go after pirates then.

I can somewhat agree with that, which is ultimately why I think now's the perfect moment to bring it to the table. WoW is an aging game. Numbers are at an all time low since Vanilla, ironically. We know - and can foresee - a bump in subscribers when Legion is released, but considering the future content drought and maybe the impossibility for Blizzard to revive its community, it's really time to start thinking about it.

Actually, I think the more recent the expansion, the easier it is, because it's that much closer to the current game, and MoP for example would even work on their hardware with no issues. They might even have backup code for it.

It is only true for MoP. But in this case, the demand wouldn't be high enough because the expansion is too recent. The code basically switched for MoP. Everything behind needs to be rewritten.

[Pann]

An adult might see how the cost might be adding up here............

Really? Just for argument's sake say they decided to implement legacy servers based on vanilla, TBC and Wrath with PVP and PVE versions of each for both NA and EU regions, giving us a total of 12 servers. As a self appointed grown up do you think that this would represent a major cost in comparison to the several hundred realms currently in service? Do you think they would attract more or less people than, say, US Balnazzar which according to warcraft realms has less than 200 players online during peak times? What about Onyxia? Or the other 100 or so realms, across the US and EU, that have less than 500 players online at peak time?

[Coconut]

~snip~

Feel free not to argue it, since you've already shown how random your thoughts are about anything beyond Vanilla. And let's be honest about it, legacy servers on their own are a stretch, something that would take nothing short of a miracle (or the death of the game) for Blizzard to implement. It's not something that has to be experimented with.

[Clbull]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/bli.../1100-6431943/



Vanilla was over 7.5M Subscribers.

Also bear in mind that WoD's 5.5 million subscriber figure includes those who purchased WoW tokens.

[Eapoe]

First off, I have to say Ghostcrawler said something, to misrepresent what he said. I am saying what he DIDN'T say, is saying more than what he said.

To be in denial of omission, is simply dumbfounding. He has EVERY reason to take Blizzard's side. But he doesn't, as a matter of fact he states his disagreement of Blizzard communication on the aspect.

So let's take it base by base -



Why not? What could you possibly have to lose by taking a side? The only thing he could lose if he wants Vanilla. He was a big advocate of a harder game. If Blizzard couldn't(Which Blizzard said so) do Legacy servers he would come right out and say it. Why wouldn't he?


Why does he feel for them? They were taking away revenue out his pocket, his mouth, yet feels for people that have taken from him? Why?



He absolute DOES know, and doesn't agree with it.



Openly states a disagreement with Blizzard on the subject of communication. Which leads from his previous statement, that he doesn't necessarily agree how Blizzard has handled it. Why would he disagree with people taking from his friends, and from him?



As I possibly can, which mean he is contractually obligated not to speak of the matter, which means. If it was in favor of Blizzard, they wouldn't push the issue, spoke out and helped them. Yet, won't speak on the matter because it could add fuel to the fire, and would damage Blizzard, something they would push against.



Which means, he acknowledges Blizzard hand in the matter, but doesn't agree with them on the matter.

Which if you take the first paragraph in the Mark Kern interview, he says the same thing.

Sorry, but I'm not misrepresenting shit.

- - - Updated - - -



Saying by omission, I have laid it out. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Wow you are wrong and grasping.
1). He's not losing anything be picking a side, he in fact says he is not taking a side. Staying neutral since he no longer works for Blizzard and not wanting to have people use what he says against Legacy and not speaking for Legacy because he doesn't want it used against Blizzard. He's remaining neutral.
2). Ghostcrawler doesn't work for Blizzard, and thereby nothing is being lost by people playing on Nost (to him personally). He's saying he feels for him because they enjoyed the server and don't have it now.
3). He explicitly states maybe Blizzard did it to protect their property, but then follows with IDK. Equally can be argued he agrees with Blizzard protecting their property since that was his example (I'm not saying that because I'm not putting words into his mouth).
4). He states how he disagrees with how open Blizzard is with their customers, when he himself would rather just lay everything out there with why things happen.
5). Being as transparent as he can be also lends to "telling you what I can while representing the company I work for without giving any underlying issues away. In other words, when a company does X he will tell you why they did X without stating exact specifics. Kind of like flight, completely likely Ghostcrawler would have said "as a team we did this because" and not express names who were for or against it on the team.
6). Blizzard has a different philosophy easily translates into they keep much quieter on matters that are happening where Ghostcrawler would rather keep people up to date on everything as it happens. He cites differences as to why he is no longer at Blizzard, one of which their ideals don't match his.
Again, you've not only misunderstood what was said but are now grasping at such unfathomable straws that you look delusional.
All he has said by omission is that he is remaining neutral.

[MoanaLisa]

If you want legacy servers for another expansion then why not ask for them? Blizzard are perfectly capable of running multiple versions if they wish, it may well be that later expansions are easier to implement. Why do you think this is a valid argument against vanilla servers?

- Vanilla, BC, Wrath at least. Perhaps others.
- PVP / PVE (at least)
- Separate server clusters by region in all of the above flavors.

It adds up. So does maintenance for all of that.

And there's no guarantee that the "market" which is accustomed to free servers will respond well to servers that require a monthly fee. And why should they? It's not as if Nostalrius was the only private server on the planet. There is this unspoken assumption underlying many arguments that if Blizzard would only offer it the entire planet would stop playing on their free servers and line up to pay. That seems unlikely.

That's a few reasons for Blizzard to be skeptical. Your argument consistently comes down to: "They can and we want that." I'm not contesting that they have the ability and that people want that. I would contest that making that your only argument is a mistake. Because Blizzard has to agree and there's no obvious sign that they have any intention of doing so.

You can make a "customer is always right" argument all day. That doesn't imply that Blizzard should be interested in offering services that they do not offer now.

[Janir]

Also bear in mind that WoD's 5.5 million subscriber figure includes those who purchased WoW tokens.

Who cares? Someone has still paid for those tokens so it's the same to them really.

[Jokerfiend]

Wow you are wrong and grasping.
1). He's not losing anything be picking a side, he in fact says he is not taking a side. Staying neutral since he no longer works for Blizzard and not wanting to have people use what he says against Legacy and not speaking for Legacy because he doesn't want it used against Blizzard. He's remaining neutral.

Then don't say anything at all. But chose too.. Hmm.

2). Ghostcrawler doesn't work for Blizzard, and thereby nothing is being lost by people playing on Nost (to him personally). He's saying he feels for him because they enjoyed the server and don't have it now.

That was what a year ago, maybe two? Still fresh enough to know. Again, why say you feel for these people. These people were taking money from his mouth, his pocket, and he feels for them. I don't feel for thieves that rob my house when they get caught. I might pity them, and a GIANT MIGHT, but feel for them? Nah, you don't feel for people stealing from you.

3). He explicitly states maybe Blizzard did it to protect their property, but then follows with IDK. Equally can be argued he agrees with Blizzard protecting their property since that was his example (I'm not saying that because I'm not putting words into his mouth).

He knows, but doesn't agree with it, because if you look at the follow up. He talks about his communication issues with Blizzard.

4). He states how he disagrees with how open Blizzard is with their customers, when he himself would rather just lay everything out there with why things happen.

5). Being as transparent as he can be also lends to "telling you what I can while representing the company I work for without giving any underlying issues away. In other words, when a company does X he will tell you why they did X without stating exact specifics. Kind of like flight, completely likely Ghostcrawler would have said "as a team we did this because" and not express names who were for or against it on the team.

I thought he doesn't work for Blizzard anymore, thus cannot speak for them. So how can he possibly know underlying issues, if he doesn't work for them. But that just lend my argument more credence. That in fact he DOES know more about, WON'T say more about it, because it would hurt Blizzard. And it's probably in his contract not too. Which means a lot more than what he says.

If Blizzard(as said) cannot do Legacy Servers, then him coming out with it, would only shut up Vanilla Enthusiasts. So why can't he speak about it? It must mean it's a complicated issue, and Blizzard isn't coming clean about it. Which he disagrees with, a known advocate of a harder game. It practically means, they can give us the experience again, but won't do to various Blizzard reasons. Ones, I am likely to agree too.

But what Ghostcrawler is saying, is the same thing Kern said.

Mark Kern: First, Blizzard has every legal right to shut down these servers, it’s true. They also have an interest in protecting their business, and I can’t fault them for that. But what I can say, is that I feel Blizzard could have handled the matter much better. In a time where gamers and developers can be so connected with each other in social media and the net, companies need to form strong communities and fandom. I would ask Blizzard to take a look at Nostalrius’s team and what they did out of pure passion, not greed, but passion, and find a way to acknowledge that. I think it’s possible, you can look at the way Valve treats fan projects and ends up hiring these teams and making great products with them. Valve channels gamer passion very well, and Blizzard could look to that as a potential model.

Sorry, but that is exactly what GC is saying. You are wrong.

[Deleted]

Even if blizzard explained in detail why they won't do it, nobody who want to play vanilla will agree and it ultimately boils down to money again, but to be honest it should be a challenge for them to release it and make a profit somehow.. Maybe blizz store or something

[Zandalarian Paladin]

- Vanilla, BC, Wrath at least. Perhaps others.
- PVP / PVE (at least)
- Separate server clusters by region in all of the above flavors.

It adds up. So does maintenance for all of that.

And there's no guarantee that the "market" which is accustomed to free servers will respond well to servers that require a monthly fee. And why should they? It's not as if Nostalrius was the only private server on the planet. There is this unspoken assumption underlying many arguments that if Blizzard would only offer it the entire planet would stop playing on their free servers and line up to pay. That seems unlikely.

That's a few reasons for Blizzard to be skeptical. Your argument consistently comes down to: "They can and we want that." I'm not contesting that they have the ability and that people want that. I would contest that making that your only argument is a mistake. Because Blizzard has to agree and there's no obvious sign that they have any intention of doing so.

You can make a "customer is always right" argument all day. That doesn't imply that Blizzard should be interested in offering services that they do not offer now.

I want to address the notion that "And there's no guarantee that the "market" which is accustomed to free servers will respond well to servers that require a monthly fee.". You seem to believe that the key market are people who play on private servers - which is absolutely false. Actually, I'm quite sure that a certain percentage of people playing on free private servers will continue to do so. The interest is different here: It offer a legal, officially supported platform for people to experience the game as it used to be. This mean that the targeted market is:

• People afraid of private servers because they're illegal;
• People who never played on vanilla servers and would like to try it;
• People who are afraid of going inside a "free" server community because of toxicity;
• People who played vanilla and look for a way to relive the experience;
• People who played private servers because there was no official option.

Some people play private servers by principle because they believe there should be no subscriptions to MMO. So I agree that there's a misconception when people think that the 225k people who signed the petition are all Nostalrius players. It's not true.

In the 225k, there are people from all the categories I've written earlier, and it's why the potential is so much more than just the "Nostalrius crowd". And to limit the potential customers to that number is even less representative, because a lot of people don't bother with this - they're the crowd that follow their friends where they go. The potential is immense.

[Eapoe]

Then don't say anything at all. But chose too.. Hmm.



That was what a year ago, maybe two? Still fresh enough to know. Again, why say you feel for these people. These people were taking money from his mouth, his pocket, and he feels for them. I don't feel for thieves that rob my house when they get caught. I might pity them, and a GIANT MIGHT, but feel for them? Nah, you don't feel for people stealing from you.




He knows, but doesn't agree with it, because if you look at the follow up. He talks about his communication issues with Blizzard.





I thought he doesn't work for Blizzard anymore, thus cannot speak for them. So how can he possibly know underlying issues, if he doesn't work for them. But that just lend my argument more credence. That in fact he DOES know more about, WON'T say more about it, because it would hurt Blizzard. And it's probably in his contract not too. Which means a lot more than what he says.

If Blizzard(as said) cannot do Legacy Servers, then him coming out with it, would only shut up Vanilla Enthusiasts. So why can't he speak about it? It must mean it's a complicated issue, and Blizzard isn't coming clean about it. Which he disagrees with, a known advocate of a harder game. It practically means, they can give us the experience again, but won't do to various Blizzard reasons. Ones, I am likely to agree too.

But what Ghostcrawler is saying, is the same thing Kern said.



Sorry, but that is exactly what GC is saying. You are wrong.

You are a stubborn one in admitting that you are just looking for meaning where there is none, and trying to enlist the aide of Ghostcrawler without his own knowledge.
1). He didn't say anything you are looking for. He said he sympathizes with people who post something and Blizzard has their reasons, he doesn't know what they are. He remained neutral.
2). He said he feels for people who lost something. Whether thieves or not, he can still feel sympathy for someone who has lost something they enjoyed. A little boy might steal my bicycle, but when I go get it back legally I still feel empathy that he's now crying his eyes out because he lost it.
3). He doesn't know. Unless you want to call him a liar. He might have an idea, but as he doesn't work for Blizzard anymore, he doesn't know what their final reasoning is.
4&5). You're quoting my comment as he doesn't know as supporting you which in turn supports me? That's pretty sound, no, really, very sound defense for your cause. Arguing aside, I stated one reason he admits to as far as leaving Blizzard and then state an example of how his response would differ compared to Blizzard staying relatively silent. Your complete misunderstanding of my post lends even more credit to my arguement you have no right to make up hidden meanings in Ghostcrawler's response.
The only thing remotely similar in their posts is that...wait, there isn't anything. Kern states a fact that Blizzard has a legal right to shut it down, GC stated they might have done it to protect their IP, but he still doesn't know. Kern stated Blizzard could have handled it better (which could mean any number of things), GC states they could be more vocal about why (again, not the same statement). Kern mentions another gaming company for Blizzard to learn from, GC mentions nothing about that. Again, you are grasping and on one hand, attempting to make Kern and GC the same person championing your cause, and on the other grasping for reasons to do just that with making up nonsense about what GC meant.

- - - Updated - - -

I want to address the notion that "And there's no guarantee that the "market" which is accustomed to free servers will respond well to servers that require a monthly fee.". You seem to believe that the key market are people who play on private servers - which is absolutely false. Actually, I'm quite sure that a certain percentage of people playing on free private servers will continue to do so. The interest is different here: It offer a legal, officially supported platform for people to experience the game as it used to be. This mean that the targeted market is:

• People afraid of private servers because they're illegal;
• People who never played on vanilla servers and would like to try it;
• People who are afraid of going inside a "free" server community because of toxicity;
• People who played vanilla and look for a way to relive the experience;
• People who played private servers because there was no official option.

Some people play private servers by principle because they believe there should be no subscriptions to MMO. So I agree that there's a misconception when people think that the 225k people who signed the petition are all Nostalrius players. It's not true.

In the 225k, there are people from all the categories I've written earlier, and it's why the potential is so much more than just the "Nostalrius crowd". And to limit the potential customers to that number is even less representative, because a lot of people don't bother with this - they're the crowd that follow their friends where they go. The potential is immense.

Both of your arguements are valid. On one hand, for part of what Moana is saying, there's no gaurantee people who played something for free are going to continue doing so when they suddenly have to pay. On the other, there are people who have avoided PS's due to the fear or taboos associated with them. As stated multiple times though, this is where Blizzard, assuming they are giving any serious thought to it, needs to crunch the numbers and see if it's even worth it.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Both of your arguements are valid. On one hand, for part of what Moana is saying, there's no gaurantee people who played something for free are going to continue doing so when they suddenly have to pay. On the other, there are people who have avoided PS's due to the fear or taboos associated with them. As stated multiple times though, this is where Blizzard, assuming they are giving any serious thought to it, needs to crunch the numbers and see if it's even worth it.

Indeed. And this is where the petition, the forums but also the global marketing Blizzard received with the closure of Nostalrius comes in. There's no doubt that the numbers changed since their last analysis, because of higher demand. Also because Nostalrius itself created a product which renewed a debate that many thought dead, both in the crowd that played Nostalrius but also the crowd that want to play on a real, genuine legacy server hosted by Blizzard.

[Coconut]

I want to address the notion that "And there's no guarantee that the "market" which is accustomed to free servers will respond well to servers that require a monthly fee.". You seem to believe that the key market are people who play on private servers - which is absolutely false. Actually, I'm quite sure that a certain percentage of people playing on free private servers will continue to do so. The interest is different here: It offer a legal, officially supported platform for people to experience the game as it used to be. This mean that the targeted market is:

• People afraid of private servers because they're illegal;
• People who never played on vanilla servers and would like to try it;
• People who are afraid of going inside a "free" server community because of toxicity;
• People who played vanilla and look for a way to relive the experience;
• People who played private servers because there was no official option.

Some people play private servers by principle because they believe there should be no subscriptions to MMO. So I agree that there's a misconception when people think that the 225k people who signed the petition are all Nostalrius players. It's not true.

In the 225k, there are people from all the categories I've written earlier, and it's why the potential is so much more than just the "Nostalrius crowd". And to limit the potential customers to that number is even less representative, because a lot of people don't bother with this - they're the crowd that follow their friends where they go. The potential is immense.

The real question is, would any of those people play Legion? Because if they would play Legion, the safest bet is to just invest in that.


But the immediate market is not the problem here. There's a serious issue of player segregation. I am assuming several legacy realms here.

On one hand, you have populations splintering. Guilds fall apart because members want to play on different eras. There are fewer people doing any specific activity across the board.

On the other hand, assume the perfect scenario. Blizz opens 3 major legacy realms, and for a while they are back to their glory days with 12 million subscribers. 5 million play Legion, 2 million Vanilla, 2 million BC and 3 million Wrath. All is great for a while and everyone is happy, but then content is consumed and Blizzard must rely on their next expansion to earn money.

They now have difficulties promoting that title to a split up population. Imagine there are 4 warlock players, one from Vanilla, one from Legion, one from BC and one from Wrath. Each of them plays a different class, basically. How do you promote the 8.0 warlock to them all? The shock would be huge. DKs will want to tank again on frost after 2 years on Wrath. People will want various spells back in the new expansion, Blizzard won't be able to please them all, and now they will each feel validated in their request, because their spec is playable on live.

Other game elements will be equally polarizing, as players are used with consuming content at different paces and doing different sorts of things. Currently, even if you have an opinion, you feel less validated to push it, but if you can actually have access to that gameplay on a retail server, you will want it that much more in the new expansion. You'd be super used to it. You played it yesterday. You can go play it again in spite of a major patch. How do you shake it off? A split population almost guarantees the 8.0 expansion will be a failure for many. Some will fail to connect from the start, others may linger on their legacy realm, but they won't buy the premium expansion.

I think even if the initial interest is huge, it might not be worth the risk. Not until they stop releasing expansions.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The real question is, would any of those people play Legion? Because if they would play Legion, the safest bet is to just invest in that.


But the immediate market is not the problem here. There's a serious issue of player segregation. I am assuming several legacy realms here.

On one hand, you have populations splintering. Guilds fall apart because members want to play on different eras. There are fewer people doing any specific activity across the board.

On the other hand, assume the perfect scenario. Blizz opens 3 major legacy realms, and for a while they are back to their glory days with 12 million subscribers. 5 million play Legion, 2 million Vanilla, 2 million BC and 3 million Wrath. All is great for a while and everyone is happy, but then content is consumed and Blizzard must rely on their next expansion to earn money.

They now have difficulties promoting that title to a split up population. Imagine there are 4 warlock players, one from Vanilla, one from Legion, one from BC and one from Wrath. Each of them plays a different class, basically. How do you promote the 8.0 warlock to them all? The shock would be huge. DKs will want to tank again on frost after 2 years on Wrath. People will want various spells back in the new expansion, Blizzard won't be able to please them all, and now they will each feel validated in their request, because their spec is playable on live.

Other game elements will be equally polarizing, as players are used with consuming content at different paces and doing different sorts of things. Currently, even if you have an opinion, you feel less validated to push it, but if you can actually have access to that gameplay on a retail server, you will want it that much more in the new expansion. You'd be super used to it. You played it yesterday. You can go play it again in spite of a major patch. How do you shake it off? A split population almost guarantees the 8.0 expansion will be a failure for many. Some will fail to connect from the start, others may linger on their legacy realm, but they won't buy the premium expansion.

I think even if the initial interest is huge, it might not be worth the risk. Not until they stop releasing expansions.

Well, the problem with your take on it is that you make several assumption about some data we don't have. For instance, we can safely assume that some players playing on retail right now would play on the legacy servers. We can also safely assume that some people unsubscribed would resubscribe for a legacy server.

But there's a whole array of possibilities in-between: some people would play both legion and legacy. Some would play legion when new patches are released and would play legacy when content drought sets in. Some would exclusively play legacy, while some would exclusively play legion and up-to-date content.

The thing here is that each of these version needs a core audience. We can safely assume that legacy servers will have an initial burst of subscribers, which will then fall quickly before stabilizing at a rather high rate. From this point forward, the population will stay roughly the same until the next expansion is released, where only a core audience will remain.

This mean that up-to-date servers will be able to finally focus on its core audience and stop trying to patch every decision they took since the birth of WoW. This also mean that community-wise, people playing the up-to-date World of Warcraft will play with like-minded individuals. Yes, the people playing only legacy will have a gap with those playing live. But this gap already exist and instead of allowing both group to play the game they like, they try to force both together, which isn't working. May we want it or not, early WoW still haunt our current WoW and the only way to put an end to this is to define said expansions as legacy, and new expansions to come as a new product in itself.

So by making sure that each have their own unique core, you finally separate the issues of the two overlapping each other.

[Eliseus]

I feel there is some odd misconception that Blizzard MUST create pvp/roleplaying/whatever servers when they don't. PVP servers already suck and usually have a little to no population compared to pve server..... in just about any game that offers both. Unless flipping a switch to turn a server pvp or pve (yes it is that simple, no you will not be right arguing it isn't) is really no cost to maintain the server, there probably won't be one for example. There probably won't be a roleplaying server either. These type of servers, if not already existing, would most likely not be worth it. Believe it or not, looking at other examples, people who want stuff like a PVP servers don't care either. They will constantly try to have one created, but still play on the other progression servers as is, because the PVP is an added bonus though the biggest goal is to just play in X era to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the problem with your take on it is that you make several assumption about some data we don't have. For instance, we can safely assume that some players playing on retail right now would play on the legacy servers. We can also safely assume that some people unsubscribed would resubscribe for a legacy server.

But there's a whole array of possibilities in-between: some people would play both legion and legacy. Some would play legion when new patches are released and would play legacy when content drought sets in. Some would exclusively play legacy, while some would exclusively play legion and up-to-date content.

The thing here is that each of these version needs a core audience. We can safely assume that legacy servers will have an initial burst of subscribers, which will then fall quickly before stabilizing at a rather high rate. From this point forward, the population will stay roughly the same until the next expansion is released, where only a core audience will remain.

This mean that up-to-date servers will be able to finally focus on its core audience and stop trying to patch every decision they took since the birth of WoW. This also mean that community-wise, people playing the up-to-date World of Warcraft will play with like-minded individuals. Yes, the people playing only legacy will have a gap with those playing live. But this gap already exist and instead of allowing both group to play the game they like, they try to force both together, which isn't working. May we want it or not, early WoW still haunt our current WoW and the only way to put an end to this is to define said expansions as legacy, and new expansions to come as a new product in itself.

So by making sure that each have their own unique core, you finally separate the issues of the two overlapping each other.

Part of the issue. He is trying to create an argument that X thing is mutually exclusive. For example, you can't walk and talk at the same time.

[Shampro]

Blizzard when they read the ''petition'' and see videos about how they don't like Blizzard anymore.

[Darkeon]

Blizzard when they read the ''petition'' and see videos about how they don't like Blizzard anymore.

Yes, that's really what is being discussed here.

People just hate WoW. So much that they are asking for more ways to play WoW.