Poll: For or Against lowering the subscription cost to $9.99

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
  1. #201
    Talks about budget cuts and here we are with not just one 40% increase of the development team after Cata but another 40% increase on top of that all the while having millions of less customers than years prior with a projected continue decline as of Q2 press conference. So call me a bit annoyed. Thanks to a combination of reduced gaming time, Steam sales, and ever increasing indy industry which places the 15 bucks a month subscription fee on top of the box fee to be no longer worth it for myself.

  2. #202
    Titan draykorinee's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ciderland, arrgh.
    Posts
    13,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaylock View Post
    Less features = Less money. Its a common sense thing. You have seen advertisements for "Good" "Better" "Best" value, and there are different price points for each. If a player does not care about having LFR or not, they shouldn't have to pay for all the time and effort it takes them to develop that content for that batch of people.
    Fine, like i say take pvp away from me, and hard mode raids, and archeology and outlands and charge me $5, where do you stop? ...you choose lfr to suit your own goals, which is why it's a terrible subscription plan. now the idea you restrict content for money is okay as a model, it works for some, but at least come up with something better than lfr hate again. Reducing costs by taking content away is not a model i have seen, if you charge $5 a month more just for lfr then no casual will do lfr, bad business idea all round.
    Last edited by draykorinee; 2013-10-29 at 10:20 PM.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Frolk View Post
    Against, if u cant afford the sub for a online game, u should instead play other games
    And it would make the game worse overall, less staff, less good stuff
    Sounds like you want them to increase the price - so you get more staff and more good stuff.

    I'm not sure if higher profits for the company means that we get trickle down benefit in support or stuff, so I voted 'yes!'

  4. #204
    Immortal FuxieDK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    København
    Posts
    7,930
    Lower sub price = less money for developing stuff => risk of adding P2W-stuff in BlzzStore = Major loss for players..
    Fact (because I say so): TBC > Cata > Legion > ShaLa > MoP > DF > BfA > WoD = WotLK

    My pet collection --> http://www.warcraftpets.com/collection/FuxieDK/

  5. #205
    Herald of the Titans Pancaspe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,674
    The current sub rate is dirt cheap. I would rather pay the same, and continue to get the kind of content we got in MOP.
    @Ghostcrawler:Some advice: [My pet issue] is why there were sub losses is one of the weaker arguments players use. Players don't have that data.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •