Classic World of Warcraft Discussion [Megathread]

[Pann]

I feel your sentiment, but I do think you're a bit inexperienced in how the industry actually works. There's a lot of backwards business stuff that won't make sense to players. I mean can you believe that a company will cancel a completely finished game because they don't want to pay more money for marketting? Blizzard has done this multiple times! Just look at Warcraft Adventures.

The reality is marketting budgets can often exceed that of development. Games get approved and cancelled based on their marketability. That's simply how it works, and I can tell you this from experience. It all boils down to a corporate decision saying Yes or No to making Vanilla WoW, not the developers. When it comes down to business, Vanilla WoW is very difficult to market, and that's the core reason why we're not likely to see it any time soon. Blizzard has to find a way to monetize before Vanilla will work.

Warcraft Adventures cancellation had nothing to do with not wanting to pay for marketing. In Blizzard's own words it was cancelled "... because we looked at where we were and said, you know, this would have been great three years ago."

No company will cancel a completed project because they do not want to pay for marketing, they will cancel it because they believe that it will not make them money, although that begs the question as to why they spent time and resources completing a project before realising it would be unprofitable. I honestly doubt Blizzard are incompetent enough to have found themselves in this kind of situation multiple times as you claim.

[Thimagryn]

No company will cancel a completed project because they do not want to pay for marketing, they will cancel it because they believe that it will not make them money, although that begs the question as to why they spent time and resources completing a project before realising it would be unprofitable. I honestly doubt Blizzard are incompetent enough to have found themselves in this kind of situation multiple times as you claim.

It can and does happen. The root reason may be because they believe a product can not make money, but that is the catalyst to pulling any marketting budget and cutting a loss to begin with. Perhaps not to the point of a complete product as Warcraft Adventures was, but it happens industry wide. Starcraft Ghost anyone? Money was put into promoting these titles before they even hit the shelves. Of course, this doesn't even apply to some of their other projects that didn't even take off, like Crixia and Nomad. Never heard of them? What about Pax Imperia and Shattered Nations? Probably not, because they didn't have any marketting behind them as Warcraft Adventures and Starcraft Ghost did back in the day. That doesn't mean they didn't spend any effort into it - there are trailers of these games floating out there on the interwebs somewhere, and it took money to make all this promotional material.

I'm not pointing out any incompetence here. I'm talking business. A project not being greenlit or being cancelled is not indicative of failing on anyone's part. It's simply business.

[Deleted]

I feel your sentiment, but I do think you're a bit inexperienced in how the industry actually works. There's a lot of backwards business stuff that won't make sense to players. I mean can you believe that a company will cancel a completely finished game because they don't want to pay more money for marketting? Blizzard has done this multiple times! Just look at Warcraft Adventures.

The reality is marketting budgets can often exceed that of development. Games get approved and cancelled based on their marketability. That's simply how it works, and I can tell you this from experience. It all boils down to a corporate decision saying Yes or No to making Vanilla WoW, not the developers. When it comes down to business, Vanilla WoW is very difficult to market, and that's the core reason why we're not likely to see it any time soon. Blizzard has to find a way to monetize before Vanilla will work.

Well maybe they can think like the other companies that are bringing old games every year, and having a lot of success. U only have to look to E3 and stuff like that, when they make the Final Fantasy VII anouncemment, people get fking crazy shit. A 20 year old game dude...20. And it's probably gonna sell more than 2 or 3 triple A game of today. Or the remake's of Resident Evil, or damned, Shenmue, who was only part of Dreamcast and Xbox family.

People are like that, we remembered all of that, and whe are like "duuude, remeber when that and that and bla bla bla...was cool", and then one day, X company say "hey players, there's the old game back again, have fun" and they fucking sell a lot of games. Another maybe Skyrim, they are having a remake soon, and they are probably sell a lot, and a lot is a lot.

Maybe nostalgia, maybe not, but today's industry is really in to the "old days" remake stuff. I think that starting to happen...specially in 2010, when the YouTube community starting to really explode and YouTubers playing old games all the time...

And yes, many proyects get cancelled almost at the end of the production, but in this case is bringing back a game that already exist, only in today's world.

And like @Pann says, i don't think Blizzard cut multiple proyects at the time, i think really relevant was only Warcraft Adventures and Titan, to be honest.

And let's be real, Blizzard is not independant, is owner is Activision, the same Activision that is milking the Call of Duty cow A LOT since 2008 with Call of Duty 4. And if Activision see the proyect and they think that can make money of it, probably Blizzard is gonna do it. Hell, who will believe...6 or 8 years ago of Blizzard making a virtual cards game? But Activision see that MTG Online starting to became big as fuck and the (and can sound stupid) Poker Texas Old Em starting to became a sensation online, and hell, card game. And it's a success.

So if Activision see's a market to make money on Vanilla, is gonna be it. Probably they are thinking to make a remake of Call of Duty 4, fans are just bananas for playing again to the "Best Call of Duty EVER".

[Pann]

It can and does happen. The root reason may be because they believe a product can not make money, but that is the catalyst to pulling any marketting budget and cutting a loss to begin with. Perhaps not to the point of a complete product as Warcraft Adventures was, but it happens industry wide. Starcraft Ghost anyone? Money was put into promoting these titles before they even hit the shelves. Of course, this doesn't even apply to some of their other projects that didn't even take off, like Crixia and Nomad. Never heard of them? What about Pax Imperia and Shattered Nations? Probably not, because they didn't have any marketting behind them as Warcraft Adventures and Starcraft Ghost did back in the day. That doesn't mean they didn't spend any effort into it - there are trailers of these games floating out there on the interwebs somewhere, and it took money to make all this promotional material.

I'm not pointing out any incompetence here. I'm talking business. A project not being greenlit or being cancelled is not indicative of failing on anyone's part. It's simply business.

It does not happen - not wanting to pay for marketing is not a reason to pull a product. It is ridiculous to suggest that a viable product would be pulled from release because the company behind it did not want to pay for marketing. I am not sure how you know that Warcraft Adventures was complete when it has never been released and the only leaked copy was described as nearly complete. Starcraft Ghost was not complete and as far as I can tell they have released information which has been reported but they never actively marketed it.

Cancelled projects have nothing to do with my post or your original claim.

It is incompetence if a company repeatedly spends time and money completing projects that are not viable. A project not being given the green light is a far different situation from a project that is greenlit, completed and then found not to be profitable which is what you claimed to have happened at Blizzard "multiple times!"

[Thimagryn]

It does not happen - not wanting to pay for marketing is not a reason to pull a product.

We're talking about Vanilla WoW here, right? A game that's already been developed? Consider that if Vanilla was going to be re-released, marketting is likely the biggest part of the relaunch budget.

And like I said, marketting is not the reason for a game to get pulled, but if it is deemed unprofitable or lacking then they will cut their losses. From a corporate standpoint, marketting can be a large part of a game's budget. And if we're talking about a huge world-wide franchise like World of Warcraft, we can assume it would be a fairly large one.

And whatever you deem is incompetence is irrelevant just the same. Would you say the lack of Vanilla relaunch right now is due to incompetence? It's complete, is it not?

A project not being given the green light is a far different situation from a project that is greenlit, completed and then found not to be profitable which is what you claimed to have happened at Blizzard "multiple times

I'll concede to this. I may have been overzealous in my examples and worded my intentions in a way that exaggerates the importance of marketting. The part about Blizzard canceling games was not intended to sound like it was because of marketting. If I were to elaborate, I'd say that considering Blizzard is a triple A company focused on games of high production value and targeting a wide audience, therefore marketting is going to be a large and important part of their business strategy. They are also known for cancelling games instead of releasing subpar products to maintain their reputation of quality. These are both factors that should be considered when we talk about Blizzard and re-releasing Vanilla WoW.

- - - Updated - - -

Well maybe they can think like the other companies that are bringing old games every year, and having a lot of success.

If WoW was a game that doesn't require maintenance in terms of customer support, server maintenance and all that, then sure. Blizzard is actively doing this with Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3, so it's absolutely possible. An MMO relaunch is not this simple. If WoW was a singleplayer game, we'd have no problem at all.

And let's be real, Blizzard is not independant, is owner is Activision, the same Activision that is milking the Call of Duty cow A LOT since 2008 with Call of Duty 4. And if Activision see the proyect and they think that can make money of it, probably Blizzard is gonna do it. Hell, who will believe...6 or 8 years ago of Blizzard making a virtual cards game? But Activision see that MTG Online starting to became big as fuck and the (and can sound stupid) Poker Texas Old Em starting to became a sensation online, and hell, card game. And it's a success.

So if Activision see's a market to make money on Vanilla, is gonna be it. Probably they are thinking to make a remake of Call of Duty 4, fans are just bananas for playing again to the "Best Call of Duty EVER".

It's funny you mentioned Activision. Activision is the reason I speak out on this very issue. I worked at an Activision Blizzard (corporate title for Activision) games division company. I saw first hand multiple projects, various states of completion, get cancelled or cut because of lack of projected AAA focus. Games like Call of Duty set the bar for every other game company under the Activision umbrella, and (at the time) it was deemed that anything less than AAA wasn't worth spending a marketting budget on and gettin pulled. My entire team was cut for this very reason, despite working on a franchise that consistently sold 1-2 million copies with each release. Activision's aim was much higher. And this is considering that what we were working on was as well known ( but not as popular) as World of Warcraft at the time.

Activision does not work in tandem with Blizzard. Blizzard self manages. Hearthstone was purely a Blizzard-driven initiative that was developed by a small team as a low-risk development title. Its success has nothing to do with Activision looking at MTG and saying 'hey we should do that! And make it popular!!'. I can understand you see it this way because that's how the company presents itself, but the actual business part of things is very different.

[Deleted]

Well i understand your point but i think we disagree in some points.

BTW, about what you say about Activision and don't make it AAA games cause they are not gonna sell more than 1-2 million copys, that's true, in fact, i remember one friend working for Ubisoft in France, he told me that they cancelled multiple projects cause there sellings are not expected to be more than 2 million copies. BUT, he was taling about NEW games, NEW things that people not know, maybe is good, maybe not.

Here i'm talking about a game that people who wants to play already know what is is, what they expect and how to play. MAYBE, and that's my "personal idea", maybe Blizzard can make like a official poll in the WoW page or the battlenet launcher or whatever, just to see what the people thinks, or twitter/facebook poll, whatever. To see how people would react to it, just a "test", like Jaggex did with Runescape.

To see what the people think, is not a bad idea. Hell they did polls about stupid things like fucking Pepe and shit like that. Why not ask the people about legacy ideas? Just for asking.

[Pann]

We're talking about Vanilla WoW here, right? A game that's already been developed? Consider that if Vanilla was going to be re-released, marketting is likely the biggest part of the relaunch budget.

And like I said, marketting is not the reason for a game to get pulled, but if it is deemed unprofitable or lacking then they will cut their losses. From a corporate standpoint, marketting can be a large part of a game's budget. And if we're talking about a huge world-wide franchise like World of Warcraft, we can assume it would be a fairly large one.

And whatever you deem is incompetence is irrelevant just the same. Would you say the lack of Vanilla relaunch right now is due to incompetence? It's complete, is it not?

Marketing is not the reason the Legacy servers are not being released. I would argue that since Legion sold extremely well despite minimal marketing compared to WoD and given the target the audience of such a service that it would need far less advertising than a new title.

You said "...can you believe that a company will cancel a completely finished game because they don't want to pay more money for marketting?" it is only after I challenged the absurdity of this claim you changed your argument to the profitably of a game being the reason for not releasing it.

Do you really believe that spending time and money completing multiple projects that are not profitable is a sign of competence? It seems like a sure fire way to go bankrupt to me.

No I would not say that re-releasing Classic is a sign of incompetence. The fact that it was released when it was completed and was the genesis for a game that has lasted over a decade and produced in excess of $10billion in revenue over the course of its lifetime is the very opposite of incompetence. However I would say such a suggestion is a sign of someone who doesn't really know what they are talking about.

[Deleted]

Legion minimal marketing, are you serious? With the movie, Overwatch bringing back a lot of name hype to Blizz, plus a lot o commercials al over the place...Dude.

Legion is selling well cause the are a player base already instaled that can buy the game the first day. Happens that since WOTLK, we know that. Also the game is better than WoD, probably at launch the best sin WOTLK, so that helps.

Also, Vanilla maybe don't need the tradicional advertising like Legion have, i think what Vanilla needs is a good internet campaign and a way to bring back the old players by showing the product.

[Pann]

Legion minimal marketing, are you serious? With the movie, Overwatch bringing back a lot of name hype to Blizz, plus a lot o commercials al over the place...Dude.

Legion is selling well cause the are a player base already instaled that can buy the game the first day. Happens that since WOTLK, we know that. Also the game is better than WoD, probably at launch the best sin WOTLK, so that helps.

Also, Vanilla maybe don't need the tradicional advertising like Legion have, i think what Vanilla needs is a good internet campaign and a way to bring back the old players by showing the product.

I take it your comment is aimed me. I wrote that marketing was minimal compared to WoD. Both the movie and Overwatch are different products and whilst there is some overlap with movie and WoW, Overwatch's marketing was aimed solely at selling more copies of Overwatch.

[Thimagryn]

You said "...can you believe that a company will cancel a completely finished game because they don't want to pay more money for marketting?" it is only after I challenged the absurdity of this claim you changed your argument to the profitably of a game being the reason for not releasing it.

That particular statement refers not to Blizzard, but to Activision as a whole. Look back in the posts, read the post I was replying to. I didn't target Blizzard specifically as doing this. Seriously, read it again without your bias of 'can you believe Blizzard cancels finished games because they're too cheap'. The statement is intended to put game production (beyond development) into perspective. My point being that even games (industry-wide, by any company) can be shelved or cancelled and have all further expenses be cut at a loss. In the case of games that have been completed and require no further money into maintenance and development, marketting becomes a critical factor in deciding whether it's worth shipping the game or taking a loss from development. Like I said, Marketting budgets for triple A games can match or exceed that of development. Having worked at an Activision company that made triple A titles, I know this first hand. One of our projects was estimated $100m to produce, and the marketting was intended to be $150m. Not a lot of people know this, which is why I brought it up.

This isn't always the case if that's how you read it. This isn't Blizzard specific if that's how you read it. This isn't about competence in developing a game that can't sell. This is about trying to market a game that is complete that is being re-evaluated for future markets. That's exactly where Vanilla stands.

Do you really believe that spending time and money completing multiple projects that are not profitable is a sign of competence? It seems like a sure fire way to go bankrupt to me.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/23/683...released-games

Crixa. Warcraft Adventures. Starcraft Ghost. These were all games that were pretty far into their development before being cut. Let's not forget Titan either, which spanned years to develop. What about Diablo 3's alpha development prior to 2011? You can still find some of those images online somewhere, the prototypes for their D2-esque sequel that ended up being scrapped completely.

I understand that from your perspective, a company that spends money developing projects that go nowhere is a good way to go bankrupt. But you haven't followed game development of Blizzard closely enough if you say this, because if you did you would realize EVERY one of their games has gone through shit-tons of iterations and risks to get to where they are now.

Diablo could have been a turn-based RPG if not for the lead programmer's change of heart to go Real Time.

The Blizzard North devs liked real time, but didn’t think it was right for Diablo, and they argued back and forth for a while (there are lots of interesting quotes from both sides of the debate, in the sample chapter), but ultimately most of the Blizzard North team came to support the real-time theory. No one really knew until they actually tried it out though, so that very evening David Brevik tackled the project:

Starcraft was initially born as a Warcraft 2 sequel in space, full of bright colors and cartoony sprites.

As Blizzard finished WarCraft II, it became a remarkable success. Afterwards Blizzard has dedicated itself to be a good company. They have rushed to make StarCraft their new game. It would be basically an improved WarCraft II. But it would have 3 races and it would be totally different, as opposing to WarCraft II with its mirror images. But as they almost finished their StarCraft game, they showed it on an E3 show. During that it was criticized so much, it appeared to look too much like WarCraft II. From then, they totally changed the game engine. We come to that section later. First there are some screenshots of the first version of StarCraft shown to the public: The Early Alpha version.

Even Warcraft 3 was originally designed to be more of a third-person RPG than an RTS. All of these are built on trial and error. Every company goes through this process. The best games are built out of iteration and a heavy dose of polish - even if every company doesn't have the luxury of time and money to do it as well as Blizzard. I'm not sure if you're in the mindset that Blizzard doesn't put money into things that will eventually fail, but that's really the nature of the entire games industry. It's built on risks and potential to fail. (Other game) Companies literally take massive loans to create a product, which only makes its money back on release IF the product sells. If they don't, companies go bankrupt.

Blizzard is structured in a solid position based on their previous success, so they don't need to take loans and go into debt at the start of production. They have the flexibility to experiment and take risks. But these risks are focused on reaching out to new players, finding more potential growth and expanding their future prospects. Vanilla is a risk that does none of these, and that's why they're so hesitant to pursue this venture.

[Pann]

That particular statement refers not to Blizzard, but to Activision as a whole. Look back in the posts, read the post I was replying to. I didn't target Blizzard specifically as doing this. Seriously, read it again without your bias of 'can you believe Blizzard cancels finished games because they're too cheap'. The statement is intended to put game production (beyond development) into perspective. My point being that even games (industry-wide, by any company) can be shelved or cancelled and have all further expenses be cut at a loss. In the case of games that have been completed and require no further money into maintenance and development, marketting becomes a critical factor in deciding whether it's worth shipping the game or taking a loss from development. Like I said, Marketting budgets for triple A games can match or exceed that of development. Having worked at an Activision company that made triple A titles, I know this first hand. One of our projects was estimated $100m to produce, and the marketting was intended to be $150m. Not a lot of people know this, which is why I brought it up.

This isn't always the case if that's how you read it. This isn't Blizzard specific if that's how you read it. This isn't about competence in developing a game that can't sell. This is about trying to market a game that is complete that is being re-evaluated for future markets. That's exactly where Vanilla stands.

Your next sentence in that post was " Blizzard has done this multiple times!" I would suggest that if you meant Activision that you should have used the word Activision instead of the word "Blizzard".

Quite clearly bringing a new product to market will need a larger marketing investment than an established one so your point is irrelevant to this topic.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/23/683...released-games

Crixa. Warcraft Adventures. Starcraft Ghost. These were all games that were pretty far into their development before being cut. Let's not forget Titan either, which spanned years to develop. What about Diablo 3's alpha development prior to 2011? You can still find some of those images online somewhere, the prototypes for their D2-esque sequel that ended up being scrapped completely.

I understand that from your perspective, a company that spends money developing projects that go nowhere is a good way to go bankrupt. But you haven't followed game development of Blizzard closely enough if you say this, because if you did you would realize EVERY one of their games has gone through shit-tons of iterations and risks to get to where they are now.

Diablo could have been a turn-based RPG if not for the lead programmer's change of heart to go Real Time. Starcraft was initially born as a Warcraft 2 sequel in space, full of bright colors and cartoony sprites. Warcraft 3 was originally designed to be more of a third-person RPG than an RTS. All of these are built on trial and error. Every company goes through this process. The best games are built out of iteration and a heavy dose of polish - even if every company doesn't have the luxury of time and money to do it as well as Blizzard. I'm not sure if you're in the mindset that Blizzard doesn't put money into things that will eventually fail, but that's really the nature of the entire games industry. It's built on risks and potential to fail. Companies literally take massive loans to create a product, which only makes its money back on release IF the product sells. If they don't, companies go bankrupt. Blizzard is not immune to failure, but they are structured in a solid position based on their previous success. They have the flexibility to experiment and take risks. But these risks are focused on reaching out to new players, finding more potential growth and expanding their future prospects. Vanilla is a risk that does none of these, and that's why they're so hesitant to pursue this venture.

I really am not sure why you've brought those games up cancelling a project within the development stage is quite normal. Nor does that article back up your claim that Blizzard have cancelled completed projects because they don't want to pay for marketing. Both Titan and D3 were re-evaluated mid-project and both resulted in profitable products, this is completely normal and again does not prove your point.

As I said re-evaluation is perfectly normal whilst developing a product. Changing a product during its development is not the same as throwing away a completed project.

You're repeating the same stuff. Again none of this backs up you're original point. What other companies do is besides the point this is about Blizzard and what you claim has happened to them multiple times.

Are you seriously suggesting Legion had anywhere near the same level of marketing as WoD? Where was Legion's Time's Square ad? Or the multiple TV spots?

[Thimagryn]

Nor does that article back up your claim that Blizzard have cancelled completed projects because they don't want to pay for marketing.

Read the statement you quoted again regarding this. Let me make this clear.

1. It was a response on Activision as a company. I said 'would you believe companies actually pull their games because of marketting'. This is an industry-wide phenomena that I was addressing.

2. I clarified later that the marketting and game cancelling were intended to be two separate statements. "Blizzard did this multiple times!" was intended to refer specifically to the cancellation of games, but not in part with marketting being the reason. It was worded badly. I even restated that it was a miscommunicated statement on my part. What more do you want?

3. I do not intend to say that Blizzard cancels their finished products because of marketting. Like I said, worded badly, elaborated in another post which you probably skimmed or ignored. Lets move on, k?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you seriously suggesting Legion had anywhere near the same level of marketing as WoD? Where was Legion's Time's Square ad? Or the multiple TV spots?

Did you see the giant Legion Wall mural in Melbourne? What about the 3-4 Artifact weapons and full suit of Demon Hunter of armor made by the Armory guys?

Honestly, if you don't know they spent more or less money than WoD, you shouldn't claim so.

[Pann]

Read the statement you quoted again regarding this. Let me make this clear.

1. It was a response on Activision as a company. I said 'would you believe companies actually pull their games because of marketting'. This is an industry-wide phenomena that I was addressing.

2. I clarified later that the marketting and game cancelling were intended to be two separate statements. "Blizzard did this multiple times!" was intended to refer specifically to the cancellation of games, but not in part with marketting being the reason. It was worded badly. I even restated that it was a miscommunicated statement on my part. What more do you want from me?

The statement you made clearly mentioned Blizzard and no-one, including yourself, had made any mention of Activision. Companies pull games because they believe they will not be successful not because they don't want to market them. I am not sure why this point needed addressing as, like Activision, no-one had mentioned it.

The statement about Blizzard having done this multiple times directly followed your claim that companies cancel completed games due to not wanting to pay for marketing. You further clarified this by offering an example by way of Warcraft Adventures.

Honestly I am not sure why insist on continuing to dig this hole you've created or what it has to do with the topic of Legacy servers. I'm sure you'll take a sentence or two from this post and try to claim that you said something else. But I'm bored now so I'll leave you to it.

Did you see the giant Legion Wall mural in Melbourne? What about the 3-4 Artifact weapons and full suit of Demon Hunter of armor made by the Armory guys?

Honestly, if you don't know they spent more or less money than WoD, you shouldn't claim so.

Nope, and apparently neither did the people asking about the lack TV advertising for Legion in this thread; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ight=legion+tv

Yeah, you're right a mural and a few bits of armour cost way more than a TV campaign and a huge ad in Time's Square.

[Thimagryn]

I really don't understand you.

You're not really listening and you're insisting I'm saying something that I clarified I did not intend, so whatever. Keep projecting whatever you think, I'm done trying to talk any sense with you.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, you're right a mural and a few bits of armour cost way more than a TV campaign and a huge ad in Time's Square.

I wouldn't consider them minimal. They probably didn't even cross your mind when you were comparing the two.

- - - Updated - - -

The statement you made clearly mentioned Blizzard and no-one, including yourself, had made any mention of Activision. Companies pull games because they believe they will not be successful not because they don't want to market them. I am not sure why this point needed addressing as, like Activision, no-one had mentioned it.

I was making a statement about the industry as a whole, and using my own experience as having worked AT Activision to back it up. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. What was worded was confusing, because I didn't explain either of those parts in my hasty reply. That's why it sounded like it was targetting Blizzard only as doing this. That's not the case.

Also I agreed with you MULTIPLE TIMES that success is the driving reason games are pulled. I don't see why you're too blind to see that. You're lecturing me on something I already agree with you on.

And yes, Marketting is a significant factor in producing games. Crixa, a 2D shooter, was shelved because 2D shooters were losing popularity. You realize that your definition of 'success' also has to factor in Marketting as well, right? This is the example I was using to support my previous statements. Crixa could have been the best 2D shooter ever made, but it would still have been a waste of money to produce and advertise it. You can't define a game's potential success without addressing its potential marketability!

[Dormie]

Seems like the problem with this thread is no one knows exactly what the topic is.

[Deleted]

The topic is about the possibility of Blizzard making a legacy server.

[Vash The Stampede]

The topic is about the possibility of Blizzard making a legacy server.

Speaking of which, when are they going to do that cause Legion sucks.

[Gadzooks]

Speaking of which, when are they going to do that cause Legion sucks.

You are going to be so, so disapointed at Blizzcon.

Make sure you log into this thread, after legacy servers aren't announced.

[Vash The Stampede]

You are going to be so, so disapointed at Blizzcon.

Make sure you log into this thread, after legacy servers aren't announced.

Hahaha, you think I really expect Blizzard to make legacy servers? That's them admitting that for the past how many years this game exists that they went the wrong direction. In all seriousness I'm waiting for a dark net Nostalrius. This thread is pointless. WoW would have to be down to 1 million subscribers before we see legacy servers, and at that point Blizzard is just milking it.

[Kyanion]

Speaking of which, when are they going to do that cause Legion sucks.

Yeah totally going to have a tough time running with that one. Legion was a nice shot in the arm to the game and overall the excitement level is still pretty high.

- - - Updated - - -

You are going to be so, so disapointed at Blizzcon.

Make sure you log into this thread, after legacy servers aren't announced.

I know I can't fucking wait, soon as Blizzcon is over I'll be here.

- - - Updated - - -

That's them admitting that for the past how many years this game exists that they went the wrong direction.

LOL quotes like this are just pure gold. "We want legacy servers but guess what, if you make them we're going to shit on you because you just are admitting you fucked up and went in the wrong direction the past few years." is pretty much what you are saying.

Damn you lost your hype since those meetings happened and not a damn thing came out of them. You got soulcrushed.