Would you be FOR or AGAINST lowering the subscription cost to $9.99 a Month???

[Itisamuh]

Lower cost means lower revenue for Blizzard, which would likely cut into production budgets.

Oh please, they make plenty. They'd make more money from their paid services alone than most games make off subscriptions AND paid services. And those games pump out content too, sometimes without any subscription, so that's hardly an issue.

[Ponzoo]

Doesn't matter to me whether they lower it or not, less would be nice, but I think this game has given me plenty for my small investment of $15/month -- and technically, SAVED me thousands in entertainment costs. I'm fine with the price where its at.

[Deleted]

Lower cost means lower revenue for Blizzard, which would likely cut into production budgets.

well not at all :P

revenue= price of sub * number of subs

so if it would bring more subs or make ppl less often freeze their accounts when they have not enough time for playing it might bring more money.

but I think if it would bring more $ they would lower the price so the price is probably close to optimal for them :P

[Kelimbror]

I understand your point of view - and don't truly disagree with it, to be honest - but I'd be concerned about the set of players who only really want access to the game itself. As much as I'd love the goodies that your plan would offer, my income as it is right now would force me out of playing WoW. If your idea was part of a tiered subscription schedule, with game time as the bottom tier, then that'd be fine with me.

Yes, my vision is that they would introduce tiers, with what I mentioned being a proposed highest tier possible. I don't think it would be good practice either to restrict people from paying for things piecemeal or as standard as it is now. Implementing this system I could see a reduction in the normal subscription price. It could even be as simple as 10/20/30. They could even use battle.net currency in some capacity so that you get a stipend with a premium subscription to use on account services, to purchase pets and mounts, or for other games. Really the sky is the limit if you start providing options and tying in everything to their whole range of games.

[schwank05]

I voted other, because I don't think cost specifics are of concern to just about anyone who plays these games. I think the sub cost could actually go up provided enough services were included. I actually am in favor of Blizzard having a battle.net subscription for like $30 a month that provides something for all of their games and enhanced features. For Ex: 1 character service a month (can be stockpiled), 50% any new game, beta access to all games, enhanced cosmetics and a special xp buff in D3, one free arena entry a day for Hearthstone, Maybe some portraits and additional customization in SC2, free skins for heroes in Heroes of the Storm....I know that sounds like a lot, but most of this stuff requires no continual effort from their staff while making sure that people stick with their brand for all gaming needs.

I like this Id pay that in a heartbeat for these options.

[ablib]

Oh please, they make plenty. They'd make more money from their paid services alone than most games make off subscriptions AND paid services. And those games pump out content too, sometimes without any subscription, so that's hardly an issue.

It doesn't matter if in your opinion you think they "make plenty". In business if money is lost, there has to be an explanation, and a plan, to bring it back. No one in board meetings ever say, "we make plenty" and close the subject.

If people thinking lowering the fee to $10 a month will bring players back, you're living in a dream world.

What should happen is that the initial investment for new players should be substantially cheaper. Buying the game, and all of it's expansions, should cost no more than any other game title on the market ($59.99), and ideally would cost no more than $39.99 because it's a subscription based game. Unfortunately it typically costs over $100. Good luck getting new players with that.

[Terahertz]

Against. It would only mean even less effort by blizzard :/

[speehs]

I see two issues with lowering the subscription cost. One, it could reduce the quality they're able to put in the game. It may not be all THAT noticeable, but it would still be an issue. Two, even if the first doesn't happen, lowering the subscription would give WoW the appearance of a cheaper game. When we pay $15 a month to play WoW, we have an expectation that we'll get our $15 worth. If we suddenly pay $10, it would feel like we're getting only $10 worth. Paying the premium price for a premium product isn't a bad thing. I'll gladly pay $15 for a good game.

[Deleted]

Definitely against.
It's already extremely cheap; lowering the sub costs would at least bring the risk of lower quality content with it.

IMO Content's been better than ever.

I agree.

[KungFuFanta]

I'm all for, because I don't believe that making 4-5 patches per year and maintaining the servers costs them a billion and some odd dollars. Servers cost electricity and technician salaries, and last time I checked, no server cluster consumed as much electricity as the Large Hadron Collier, nor were technicians paid 1 million $/year salaries.

If each expansion they'd treat us with amazing new features and story writing I wouldn't mind, as it is we're paying monthly fees for mostly the same quests with different text and new artwork.

You have patches like Ulduar and Krasarang Landing which ooze quality, then you have shit like Siege and Thunder King which feel like plan B's for unmet schedule deadlines.

And let's not forget patch 5.3, running around Durotar collecting over 1000 items for no real purpose at all.

[schwank05]

I pay in 6 month blocks, so that makes my sub more like $12 a month instead of $15.

- - - Updated - - -




Consider the source, yeah, you may be on to something.

Same here have done this since 2005

[Gimlix]

Lower cost means lower revenue for Blizzard, which would likely cut into production budgets.

Because blizzard loses a few dollars, doesn't mean content will be worse.
There are plenty of 'good' games out there where there isn't a monthly sub and they do great too.
Blizzard has enough money to keep WoW amazing for next 2000 years =/

[Deleted]

Against. For it to make a difference that a consumer would notice, they'd have to lower the price to at least $10 per month. That would reduce their revenue by 33%

Not necessarily, they could balance it out by making a leveling potion available in the shop. I would buy one.

You give, you take, don't look at this blindly, they can slightly lower the price per month to under 10$ (psychological bonus for them) and introduce the leveling potion and actually make more money out of it.

[Deleted]

Anyone saying against is a fucking retard. It's one thing to be willing to spend more, but it's another to be wishing to spend more.

Not necessarily, they could balance it out by making a leveling potion available in the shop. I would buy one.

You give, you take, don't look at this blindly, they can slightly lower the price per month to under 10$ (psychological bonus for them) and introduce the leveling potion and actually make more money out of it.

Or you know, they could keep the sub price & add the leveling potions. People already playing aren't planning on stopping just because it costs money.

Blizz would be stupid to reduce sub prices as long as it has the massive amount of subs that it does.

Keep it civil please.

[Deleted]

Against.

Like Sunius said, I'd never want to put someone out of a job, there has already been lay off in customer support and frankly - no one deserves that. Not to mention the less revenue the less quality work we would get from Blizzard. I'm sure a lot of you will reply "the quality is already bad" - well, imagine what it would like if the subscription cost decreased?

Stupid idea.

[Kelimbror]

I like this Id pay that in a heartbeat for these options.

Me too. I'm hoping with their expansion into F2P games, including Hearthstone and 'soon' to be Heroes of the Storm that they really take a look at some additional revenue options outside of charging us a la carte for everything they create. People will pay for valued services, which is what they should shift their focus to as a premier company for gaming. I think providing options in an increasingly growing and more competitive market is a great idea.

[Rabian]

I picked Other, it's not that I would "hate for it to be lower" (nice poll choices btw :/), but it is so cheap already, basically 50 cents a day, that lowering it to 30 cents a day just seems pointless. The only way to get people back would be to remove the cost entirely imo.

[Deleted]

Anyone saying against is a fucking retard. It's one thing to be willing to spend more, but it's another to be wishing to spend more.

You sir, seem to be the retard. You want to pay less for anything, how about paying less from a shoddy, shit stained McDonalds than paying an extra $5 for a pristine 'good' burger? Use your nogging, tit.

Not necessarily, they could balance it out by making a leveling potion available in the shop. I would buy one.

You give, you take, don't look at this blindly, they can slightly lower the price per month to under 10$ (psychological bonus for them) and introduce the leveling potion and actually make more money out of it.

A Blizzard store item is just a short term revenue. A subscription is a long lasting revenue.

[Deleted]

Definitely against.
It's already extremely cheap; lowering the sub costs would at least bring the risk of lower quality content with it.


I agree.

If you honestly believe that even 10% off sub money goes to content, well then...lol...

[Masoner]

yep. how could anyone be against lowering the cost?

I am 100% against it.

The price is perfect, has been for 10 years.

If you can't afford 15 bucks a month then you should be getting a better job and not worried about playing wow.