Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Deleted]

Yeah and at launch they had what 10% of that start playing? I remember reading it was like 60k or something when those servers launched. So you are going to use Runescape as a good example? I mean hell 250k people turns into 25k people awfully quickly if we use runescape as an example.


Psst...using Runescape isn't a good example imo.

- - - Updated - - -



Yup you nailed it. It was why I pointed out these things when people started long ago talking about "Well Runescape and Everquest did it!" and why it isn't the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -



Because it is a discussion about WoW and legacy. I may be against it but I understand WHY people want it. I'm just trying to point out why I don't believe it will work. And I want to debunk things like the "Well Runescape did it!" argument.

Also I'd rather not see this thread turn into a circle-jerk with just pro-legacy people thinking that EVERYONE in the community thinks the same way as them.

runescape is almost the only example there is hence why it gets used.
if we can't use examples it will just be an argument of made up numbers and blizzard saying that they've checked the numbers and data from wherever they got them from.

oldschool runescape was a success even tho their data didn't show it
and for me it seems that the only argument from people that are against legacy servers is that blizzard said so or that it can't possibly be succesfull since it won't get millions of subs.
Many MMO games can run fine with patches and updates without having millions of subs. heck a few hundred thousand is enough to turn a profit and have an active team. and it's not like their main game will dissapear, legacy is a side thing not their main way profit

[Eleccybubb]

runescape is almost the only example there is hence why it gets used.
if we can't use examples it will just be an argument of made up numbers and blizzard saying that they've checked the numbers and data from wherever they got them from.

oldschool runescape was a success even tho their data didn't show it
and for me it seems that the only argument from people that are against legacy servers is that blizzard said so or that it can't possibly be succesfull since it won't get millions of subs.
Many MMO games can run fine with patches and updates without having millions of subs. heck a few hundred thousand is enough to turn a profit and have an active team. and it's not like their main game will dissapear, legacy is a side thing not their main way profit

There is just one difference. WoW requires a sub to play and no doubt legacy servers will. Runescape does not.

[Kyanion]

runescape is almost the only example there is hence why it gets used.
if we can't use examples it will just be an argument of made up numbers and blizzard saying that they've checked the numbers and data from wherever they got them from.

oldschool runescape was a success even tho their data didn't show it
and for me it seems that the only argument from people that are against legacy servers is that blizzard said so or that it can't possibly be succesfull since it won't get millions of subs.
Many MMO games can run fine with patches and updates without having millions of subs. heck a few hundred thousand is enough to turn a profit and have an active team. and it's not like their main game will dissapear, legacy is a side thing not their main way profit

Everquest was another example bandied about. The reason there isn't many examples to use is because this hasn't happened much and NEVER on a scale such as WoW.

Oldschool runescape was a success compared to what? Other versions of Runescape? Not compared to WoW that is for sure.

And there are many arguments as to why people are against Legacy servers, it has been beaten to death. I think it is a can of worms that Blizz does NOT want to open, people will demand all sorts of shit if Legacy was announced. I know I'd much rather have TBC or WotLK over shit Vanilla.

And finally, maybe a few hundred thousand people isn't worth it to Blizz for compromising on their desire to keep the game moving forward. WoW isn't the only money maker they have now and they aren't required to go after money just because it MIGHT be there.

[Bannik254]

They can't because if they do that with 1 then they would have to do it with all servers and risk losing their IP and allowing these servers to profit if they wished.

The main issue Blizzard has with licensing private servers is keeping WoW as a service rather than a singular game, I get that. Even while I spent hundreds of dollars for their base game and expansions, I do not have a right to play the game I bought since it's legally a service, I get that. But fuck if I think that is ethical or agreeable. I bought a game, and I should be able to play that game. If Blizzard refuses to allow me to play my game, then I will find other places to play my game. I bought it, I should be able to play it.

Now, my QQing aside, last time I checked there are thousands of private game servers for Valve games, even though I don't see Valve losing their IP rights? There are tens of thousands of active private Minecraft servers, I don't see Microsoft losing their IP rights. There are a great many online games that are privately hosted.

Though I suppose one would argue WoW isn't a game but a service, and therefore isn't a product and consumers don't have the same rights or protections, rather fucked up if you ask me.

[Gadzooks]

runescape is almost the only example there is hence why it gets used.
if we can't use examples it will just be an argument of made up numbers and blizzard saying that they've checked the numbers and data from wherever they got them from.

oldschool runescape was a success even tho their data didn't show it
and for me it seems that the only argument from people that are against legacy servers is that blizzard said so or that it can't possibly be succesfull since it won't get millions of subs.
Many MMO games can run fine with patches and updates without having millions of subs. heck a few hundred thousand is enough to turn a profit and have an active team. and it's not like their main game will dissapear, legacy is a side thing not their main way profit

There is no overwhelming consensus among the so called "anti-legacy crowd" that anyone is against them. I personally don't care. I don't have a problem if you want them, either. But I simply correct the hilariously distorted and twisted logic and arguments that continue to be thrown around this thread. It's entertainment. This isn't a working group trying to come up with reasons to make Blizzard do what you want - it's discussion. That's all. And if wild claims are made, they're going to be commented on, even if you get labeled as a "bully" when you do.

The thread is fascinating to watch, in a clinical sense, to see the levels of denial raise up constantly, and how the "pro legacy" crowd (a small handful of posters) keep intentionally denying reality any time it's brought up to them. They've demonized everyone, tried to chase naysayers or anyone who comments on their laughably incorrect statements and fantasies away, distort everything, accuse everyone of lying, and in general, have only proven that they're childish and throwing an extended tantrum over being told "no". It'll calm down for a bit, until the now mythical meetings with the Nost crew and kern happen - and when nothing of substance is reported after them, there will be a new round of tantrums, and finding some new obscure thing to cling to, refusing to give up. I'm calling it now.

It's one thing to participate in a megathread like the one before Legion, with the speculation and trolling and people searching copyright and trademark databases and leaks, but this thread went way beyond this a while ago, now it's very obsessive compulsive and I wonder about the emotional stability and health of some of the people waging a make-believe war in this thread. It's one thing if it's kids - it's one of the things they do, like arguing who's better, Superman or Spiderman. But I know some of them are adults...and that's not good.

- - - Updated - - -

The main issue Blizzard has with licensing private servers is keeping WoW as a service rather than a singular game, I get that. Even while I spent hundreds of dollars for their base game and expansions, I do not have a right to play the game I bought since it's legally a service, I get that. But fuck if I think that is ethical or agreeable. I bought a game, and I should be able to play that game. If Blizzard refuses to allow me to play my game, then I will find other places to play my game. I bought it, I should be able to play it.

The game has never been static - you knew going in that the game would change and evolve over time. Now, all of a sudden, you have a problem with it?

Granted, they've made mis-steps, like the Cata revamp, that changed the old world forever, but I seem to recall it was something people were asking for pretty frequently before it happened, that it was needed.

I bought GTA 4. If I install it, it's still GTA 4. But I knew it wouldn't change drastically, as it's not a game that changes with expansions.

You're applying rules to a specific kind of game model that don't work.

Now, my QQing aside, last time I checked there are thousands of private game servers for Valve games, even though I don't see Valve losing their IP rights? There are tens of thousands of active private Minecraft servers, I don't see Microsoft losing their IP rights. There are a great many online games that are privately hosted.

What other companies do is irrelevant.

Though I suppose one would argue WoW isn't a game but a service, and therefore isn't a product and consumers don't have the same rights or protections, rather fucked up if you ask me.

It's both. It's sold as being both, they have never hidden that the game can and does change on a regular basis. Vanilla wow was never promised to be the same forever - that expectation is quite frankly irrational, considering the kind of game it is.

[Eapoe]

The main issue Blizzard has with licensing private servers is keeping WoW as a service rather than a singular game, I get that. Even while I spent hundreds of dollars for their base game and expansions, I do not have a right to play the game I bought since it's legally a service, I get that. But fuck if I think that is ethical or agreeable. I bought a game, and I should be able to play that game. If Blizzard refuses to allow me to play my game, then I will find other places to play my game. I bought it, I should be able to play it.

Now, my QQing aside, last time I checked there are thousands of private game servers for Valve games, even though I don't see Valve losing their IP rights? There are tens of thousands of active private Minecraft servers, I don't see Microsoft losing their IP rights. There are a great many online games that are privately hosted.

Though I suppose one would argue WoW isn't a game but a service, and therefore isn't a product and consumers don't have the same rights or protections, rather fucked up if you ask me.

The problem with the mentality of "I bought therefore..." is that you still have the ability to play the game. It's still WoW, just evolved thru the years. By this standpoint alone, if WoW 2 ever happens or they just end WoW altogether then a Legacy would be more than likely to happen. As it stands though, it's tough selling an idea to a company that instead of moving forwards with new iterations, to go backwards to a previous installment.
The issue with your other game examples is that, as far as I know, all games from those companies are F2P, and have less of an interest in pursuing copyright infringements as there is no money being taken from a monthly sub. If any game did have a sub attached to it, then they are more than likely to go for private hosts more if they try and attempt to make money off of it. Before anyone say "...but Nost didn't," we all here know they took donations to keep the company going, and whether personal gain, breaking even, or even losing money, they still made money on another company's property.

[Bannik254]

If it was the same game, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It may share the IP, and from a legality standpoint it's the same service, but as a gamer, I can tell you it is most certainly NOT the same game.

[RickJamesLich]

I'm against official legacy servers, simply because I don't believe Blizzard would re-release their game as it once was. If they made legacy servers, they would change the game to suit their current playerbase with Battle.net, microtransactions, flying, dual specialization, perhaps not right away but it would only be a matter of time before Blizzard caves to the lowest common denominators within their game.

Instead, I would prefer if Blizzard would simply allow licensing of some sort to private server groups, if Nostalrius or K2 would become legitimised by Blizzard that would be the best, imo.

This is a big concern of mine too, but just based off of what they said with pristine servers (which I'm sure just about every Nost fan thinks is an awful idea), it does sound like they are interested in delivering something that doesn't involve all of the garbage that retail normally provides. We've heard for years "legacy servers are never going to happen" but based off of Mark Kern's work and the fact that blizzard is going to meet the Nostalrius team, it seems like there's a good chance this will finally come into fruition. Gotta keep our fingers crossed, but hopefully the Nost team can explain that the reason they were so successful compared to other servers was because the said they would give a blizz like experience and then delivered upon it.

[Duronos]

Don't see why anyone on here would be against legacy servers, "It takes away valuable dev time on retail". Look they've fucked up in numerous ways and to be completely honest, once they have the code down it's fairly easy to upkeep. Personally I think they could use a shortcut and take Nostalrius' code but just improve upon certain aspects of it such as the bear boss in DM West being pulled from god forsaken areas of the instance that it shouldn't. Class bugs would be another but overall the actual project of fixing some old code (especially if they took the pirated code, I mean fuck them and the Nost devs could keep on the down low if they didn't want anyone knowing) is not nearly as hard as everyone wants to think it is on here.

No them having legacy servers really won't take away from dev time on retail, fun fact... You might like to think they gave you a lot of content in Pandaria but to compare what they gave you with BC and Wrath it pales since. They've literally gone downhill in terms of content for quite awhile now and sub numbers show this, when you create a game and then balance it around the lowest time playing players who can barely get into one raid (in this case they made LFR) you create less of a reason to keep playing for a lot of people.

Now I'm not saying it needs to be ultra hardcore but really half of your guys argument is, "I pay to play I should see everything". It's a fucking game, did you buy Dark Souls 3 and expect to just be transported to the last boss instantly because you paid? It's a fucking game, the reason Vanilla (despite it's flaws, trust me I played to 60 on retail vanilla and nost) and BC had sub numbers rising aside from community actually mattering was because the game had a lot of content you had to go through to get gear before you could even barely set foot in the next one.

Yes you can say attunements are bad, they really aren't all that terrible with the exception of the Onyxia one which even then only took a few days tops. Every video game has gates, accept that. Attunements weren't necessarily a bad thing, it actually in many ways makes perfect sense for an RPG to have one as it's a key to the dungeon. This entire "I don't want to work for this, it's a game" doesn't make any sense to me, if WoW feels like work and it bothers you why the fuck are you playing it? When I played back then it felt like a game, games have challenges, games have gating (especially MMO's), you work to pass these things. Some things take time to complete and it's a shame that many of you just expect it to be given within the next hour of starting something, is that truly what gamers have progressed too at least in terms of WoW?

Where's the fun in having it given to you, there's no challenge. There's no reason to play a game like WoW without the work ethic, not everything needs to be a grind but to get to the end game, yeah stuff like that needs it. It's what allows people to keep playing even if they never make it, it technically creates more content like it or not.

I've been on this forum for years and slowly over time I've watched the mentality on here change and it's obvious because the people on here still play WoW a lot in this section. It sucks being told your game isn't what it used to be and it's not just me saying "in the olden days this was better". You argue convenience is necessary, convenience kills a game when it goes to far. WoW was convenient when it came out compared to Everquest but that was because Everquest was 5 steps to far for most people in terms of ultra hardcore. WoW hit that perfect point in BC where it was just right, it had the end game raiding and 5 man heroics that you had to get through and pvp really finally came into its own with better class balance (no I know resto druid was retarded but overall it was better than Vanilla).

Again this isn't me trying to say "in my days" because the truth is some damn good games have come out in this age and Overwatch is actually fucking sick. Battlefield 4 was better than Battlefield 3 once they fixed the server etc. issues but the best comparison I can make to WoW is Star Wars Battlefront. They truly just dumbed it down for no reason, yeah I'm not saying Battlefront 1 or 2 were top tier games but they were certainly better for their time (maybe a bad comparison because Vanilla still does hold up in it's own way after playing on it to BWL on Nost) then what we get nowadays. I don't expect legacy servers to become a thing right now but eventually they'll realize and they'll make some kind of legacy server whether it's one where they add new stuff to it but keep the overall philosophy the same or just straight legacy servers.

[Uurdz]

A worthwhile read which covers a number of the issues discussed here so far.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/build...r-avoided-kemp

[Deleted]

Don't see why anyone on here would be against legacy servers, "It takes away valuable dev time on retail". Look they've fucked up in numerous ways and to be completely honest, once they have the code down it's fairly easy to upkeep. Personally I think they could use a shortcut and take Nostalrius' code but just improve upon certain aspects of it such as the bear boss in DM West being pulled from god forsaken areas of the instance that it shouldn't. Class bugs would be another but overall the actual project of fixing some old code (especially if they took the pirated code, I mean fuck them and the Nost devs could keep on the down low if they didn't want anyone knowing) is not nearly as hard as everyone wants to think it is on here.

No them having legacy servers really won't take away from dev time on retail, fun fact... You might like to think they gave you a lot of content in Pandaria but to compare what they gave you with BC and Wrath it pales since. They've literally gone downhill in terms of content for quite awhile now and sub numbers show this, when you create a game and then balance it around the lowest time playing players who can barely get into one raid (in this case they made LFR) you create less of a reason to keep playing for a lot of people.

Now I'm not saying it needs to be ultra hardcore but really half of your guys argument is, "I pay to play I should see everything". It's a fucking game, did you buy Dark Souls 3 and expect to just be transported to the last boss instantly because you paid? It's a fucking game, the reason Vanilla (despite it's flaws, trust me I played to 60 on retail vanilla and nost) and BC had sub numbers rising aside from community actually mattering was because the game had a lot of content you had to go through to get gear before you could even barely set foot in the next one.

Yes you can say attunements are bad, they really aren't all that terrible with the exception of the Onyxia one which even then only took a few days tops. Every video game has gates, accept that. Attunements weren't necessarily a bad thing, it actually in many ways makes perfect sense for an RPG to have one as it's a key to the dungeon. This entire "I don't want to work for this, it's a game" doesn't make any sense to me, if WoW feels like work and it bothers you why the fuck are you playing it? When I played back then it felt like a game, games have challenges, games have gating (especially MMO's), you work to pass these things. Some things take time to complete and it's a shame that many of you just expect it to be given within the next hour of starting something, is that truly what gamers have progressed too at least in terms of WoW?

Where's the fun in having it given to you, there's no challenge. There's no reason to play a game like WoW without the work ethic, not everything needs to be a grind but to get to the end game, yeah stuff like that needs it. It's what allows people to keep playing even if they never make it, it technically creates more content like it or not.

I've been on this forum for years and slowly over time I've watched the mentality on here change and it's obvious because the people on here still play WoW a lot in this section. It sucks being told your game isn't what it used to be and it's not just me saying "in the olden days this was better". You argue convenience is necessary, convenience kills a game when it goes to far. WoW was convenient when it came out compared to Everquest but that was because Everquest was 5 steps to far for most people in terms of ultra hardcore. WoW hit that perfect point in BC where it was just right, it had the end game raiding and 5 man heroics that you had to get through and pvp really finally came into its own with better class balance (no I know resto druid was retarded but overall it was better than Vanilla).

Again this isn't me trying to say "in my days" because the truth is some damn good games have come out in this age and Overwatch is actually fucking sick. Battlefield 4 was better than Battlefield 3 once they fixed the server etc. issues but the best comparison I can make to WoW is Star Wars Battlefront. They truly just dumbed it down for no reason, yeah I'm not saying Battlefront 1 or 2 were top tier games but they were certainly better for their time (maybe a bad comparison because Vanilla still does hold up in it's own way after playing on it to BWL on Nost) then what we get nowadays. I don't expect legacy servers to become a thing right now but eventually they'll realize and they'll make some kind of legacy server whether it's one where they add new stuff to it but keep the overall philosophy the same or just straight legacy servers.

^ This so much. I like the comparison with the new battlefront, having played battlefront 1 and 2 the new one feels exactly like the situation we are in with wow right now. Dumbed down to make many players play it for 30-40 hours, but then leave it and play the next one, thats how retail wow feels now.

I also think the mentality of the people here on mmo-c is frightening. While in all the other wow-communitys (even /r/wow!) it is nowadays accepted that wod is bad or at least not that great, here people still are off the opinion that the majority of the community is wrong and that blizzard knows exactly what they are doing, despite loosing 80% of their playerbase due to shitty decisions and bad design.

[Deleted]

There is just one difference. WoW requires a sub to play and no doubt legacy servers will. Runescape does not.

That is a fair point, but look at the many vanilla private servers that exists. All of who are free to play. I won't mention names, but one of the servers recently had to make a whole new server due to the thousands of players wanting to join.

The servers mostly survive by selling vanity items, like mounts, tabbards, pets etc (no pay to win). If Blizzard decided to do legacy, they would not even need subs for it. But then again, I'm quite sure they would try to get as many subs as possible.

[Gavan]

That is a fair point, but look at the many vanilla private servers that exists. All of who are free to play. I won't mention names, but one of the servers recently had to make a whole new server due to the thousands of players wanting to join.

The servers mostly survive by selling vanity items, like mounts, tabbards, pets etc (no pay to win). If Blizzard decided to do legacy, they would not even need subs for it. But then again, I'm quite sure they would try to get as many subs as possible.

My assumption (again, assumption) is that the folks wanting Legacy are more old school and would accept subs. I've read several forums that folks are actually willing to pay more than 15 a month.

Not 100% sure on the market piece for this, but you can take SWtOR and Wildstar's FtP conversions as an idea. However, it seems like every game has had a different result with FtP.

Since WoW is still sub based, and the community is more willing or expects it already, I'm sure that they'll use a similar model to what they have now for the additional monitization of the game.

[Jeniwyn]

My assumption (again, assumption) is that the folks wanting Legacy are more old school and would accept subs. I've read several forums that folks are actually willing to pay more than 15 a month.

Not 100% sure on the market piece for this, but you can take SWtOR and Wildstar's FtP conversions as an idea. However, it seems like every game has had a different result with FtP.

Since WoW is still sub based, and the community is more willing or expects it already, I'm sure that they'll use a similar model to what they have now for the additional monitization of the game.

This is very likely true. And I think this is why we are suddenly seeing other responses than straight up NO from Blizzard.

Prior to Nostalrius the private scene was reasonably described as a lot of players who mainly played there because it was free. Sure that wasn't true for everyone, but Nost was sort of a paradigm shift since most players on Nost really played there even though they could easily afford retail. They just prefered Nost. However, the 'because free' players also moved to Nost in huge numbers so we see a lot of post from thwm aswell.And whenever they post players like me who don't care how much it would cost to play pounce on them fairly hard because we want to demonstrate our willingness to pay.

The Nost teams survey will hopefully paint a very clear picture of the legacy proponents. I'm slightly surprised that they didn't gather more demographic data though.

[Deleted]

My assumption (again, assumption) is that the folks wanting Legacy are more old school and would accept subs. I've read several forums that folks are actually willing to pay more than 15 a month.

Not 100% sure on the market piece for this, but you can take SWtOR and Wildstar's FtP conversions as an idea. However, it seems like every game has had a different result with FtP.

Since WoW is still sub based, and the community is more willing or expects it already, I'm sure that they'll use a similar model to what they have now for the additional monitization of the game.

I'm not doubting that they can or will try a sub-based solution. IMO it won't matter, because I'd pay to play. But the huge problem might be getting everyone that's playing on free private servers to join a sub-based solution. Some of these servers are really good, with blizzlike scripting and a tight community. Some servers are even overpopulated, the result being that that they keep two servers open. The server I played on could keep a number of up to 6000 players on it at a time (I think a normal blizz server is like 3000?) and then there where long que-times up to 4000 players.

I'm sure people are willing to pay a sub fee every month, but the issue might not even be money, but rather community and their current characters.

Imagine of Blizzard took the data from Nost, Kronos and a few other private servers, merged it and made it possible for everyone who invested time and effort on those servers to keep their current chars. I'm sure they would get most people to buy a sub in no time at all.

[Jibjub]

My assumption (again, assumption) is that the folks wanting Legacy are more old school and would accept subs. I've read several forums that folks are actually willing to pay more than 15 a month.

Not 100% sure on the market piece for this, but you can take SWtOR and Wildstar's FtP conversions as an idea. However, it seems like every game has had a different result with FtP.

Since WoW is still sub based, and the community is more willing or expects it already, I'm sure that they'll use a similar model to what they have now for the additional monitization of the game.

I agree. Personally, I am much more interested in playing a sub-based game than F2P ... in fact, usually when I find out a game is F2P I lose interest. They are usually not very well implemented (looking at you ArcheAge). Having played Everquest for a few years before WoW was a thing ... I am used to paying subs and sub games are almost always superior to F2P games (I have found it impossible for games reliant upon cash shop revenue to not have game designs and choices directly affected by the presence of the cash shop). Can this happen in a F2P game? Sure. But it's less likely ... and I haven't experienced it yet.

If I am getting the game I want and getting lots of hours out of it, I am more than willing to pay for it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not doubting that they can or will try a sub-based solution. IMO it won't matter, because I'd pay to play. But the huge problem might be getting everyone that's playing on free private servers to join a sub-based solution. Some of these servers are really good, with blizzlike scripting and a tight community. Some servers are even overpopulated, the result being that that they keep two servers open. The server I played on could keep a number of up to 6000 players on it at a time (I think a normal blizz server is like 3000?) and then there where long que-times up to 4000 players.

I'm sure people are willing to pay a sub fee every month, but the issue might not even be money, but rather community and their current characters.

Imagine of Blizzard took the data from Nost, Kronos and a few other private servers, merged it and made it possible for everyone who invested time and effort on those servers to keep their current chars. I'm sure they would get most people to buy a sub in no time at all.

Keep in mind that if Blizzard launched legacy servers they would hunt down and shut down any private server. And they would be pretty diligent about it.

[Deleted]

Keep in mind that if Blizzard launched legacy servers they would hunt down and shut down any private server. And they would be pretty diligent about it.

Perhaps, but would it be in their best interest to do so? Or don't you think they could get a lot more players to join their legacy servers by being the cool devs that let all those who beg for it keep their older chars (or get some form of bonus)? Learn from the people who have been running legacy servers for some time now or even hire them to help manage this?

[Jeniwyn]

Perhaps, but would it be in their best interest to do so? Or don't you think they could get a lot more players to join their legacy servers by being the cool devs that let all those who beg for it keep their older chars (or get some form of bonus)? Learn from the people who have been running legacy servers for some time now or even hire them to help manage this?

Blizzard cannot reward players for playing on private servers. They just can't. If they release legacy servers the players who stuck with Blizzard through thick and thin cannot be put at a disadvantage.

[Gavan]

Blizzard cannot reward players for playing on private servers. They just can't. If they release legacy servers the players who stuck with Blizzard through thick and thin cannot be put at a disadvantage.

Not sure how that would happen. Historically, software companies (especially security companies) will hire black hats and other non-traditional resources to further business needs. Gaming companies are no different and often hire modders and other folks on the fringe (sometimes well into the dark) if it fits the project need.

Customers wouldn't see any disadvantage if done correctly. Development of a Legacy platform for WoW would be no more internal competition than what happens with the development of new IP and other new releases of existing IPs.

Although, I do see some folks complaining about the attention that HotS, HS, and OW have gotten in comparison to WoW....... But that's more of not understanding how a AAA studio works.

[Thimagryn]

My assumption (again, assumption) is that the folks wanting Legacy are more old school and would accept subs. I've read several forums that folks are actually willing to pay more than 15 a month.

It'll be interesting to see what business model Blizz will come up with to tap into that part of the community. WoW Tokens have turned out to be incredibly effective so far. I don't think oldschool players would be interested in buying gold. What kind of microtransactions/incentives/services would appeal to an oldschool crowd?