Reason's behind disgust at 60$ for level 90 chars

[rhorle]

• A level squish that staggers leveling zones. Reduce the total time it takes to reach max level significantly while also giving players more choice in which zones they level in.
• Offer quests to max-level characters in liue of some sort of "apprentice" lore where your max-level characters helps boost a new character to 60/70/80/90/whatever. via a small quest chain.
• Increase EXP BoA rates by a significant amount.
• Add BoA EXP on-use items to end-game content such as heroic dungeons/raiding/PvP/Pandaria pet battles, etc. as random drops. Said on-use items would give a fixed or % worth amount of EXP to the character that uses them.
• Hell, make a new gold sink. Gold for levels.

1,3, and 4 is still stale content. Why would I be happy about doing the same content again just because I can do it the entire way through again?

4 is the same thing as offering boosts for cash but using gold instead of cash. It still has all of the "band aid" fixes that you just got done claiming boosting for cash contains. That seems to indicate that your really motive here is all about real money transactions. And the rest is all being invented as reasons to justify why real money transactions are bad.

As a boost for gold carries all the same advantages and disadvantages as one for cash. That is because it is the same exact boost. You can't argue one is bad while at the same time saying the other is a fine alternative.


There are more that I can't think of. I'm not a professional developer at Blizzard, I'm sure they can think of something better. Whatever they come up with, it's better than paying real-life money for this shortcoming.

Once again I'll say it: You're creating something out of nothing. A server or faction change is not in the same line. A server or faction change is still meta-game in the sense that servers are part of the meta-game. Paying for a level 90 character is not meta, it directly effects the actual game.

Having a new 90 on a new server effects the meta the same as having a new 90 on a new server. A server change ensures that there is one new 90 on that server. Competing for all the nodes, drops, raid spots etc that a boosted 90 would. It also doesn't require you to level up a character on a new server, just like boosting does.

[silvercentric]

Just a quick quip, how can anyone say that a game that has retained *millions* of monthly paying subscribers for *over a decade* is a bad game design with a straight face?

Quality of a product is not proportional to its consumer base. Most would say that "Jersey Shore" is a horrible TV show but that doesn't stop people from watching it.

Its bad design to allow those who want to the option to do it? A person buying a 90 doesn't effect you.

Except it does. This is a MMO (Massively multiplayer online game incase you didn't know). This is not a single player game. What other players can and will do does effect me. Everyone who plays the game should be bound by the same rules. Paying money should not give you special privilege over other players.

If Blizzard spent the requisite amount of time required to continue to 'improve' the 1-X leveling process expansion after expansion the very same people would be here complaining about it and the effect on end game. They did that once, they learned a lesson and I don't expect them to be stupid enough to have to learn it a second time.

The Cataclysm leveling re-vamp was a on a completely different level. They changed geography, lore, quests, etc. for entire zones. This constant "but then we'll have to cut X tier in Y" is such a cop out to avoid addressing issues that need attention.

- - - Updated - - -

So once again: I do not want to level at all. Not again.

Then you don't need the option to buy a 90 either. Wasn't that simple?

[rhorle]

When are you ever forced to make an alt? Nobody is forcing you to go through old content. There is value in creating a new character and you are bypassing that by using out-of-game means when you pay for it.

What value is there in leveling 1-85 currently on an alt?

As I said above. I am not a professional game designer. It doesn't fall on me to come up with the best solution to their problem, I am merely suggesting one possible solution. I did offer more solutions in the post directly above yours.

But all of your solutions don't address the biggest problem with leveling, stale content. And the reason Blizzard has offered level boosts for years is stale and out dated content. SoR offered level boosts to get returning players into relevant content. This isn't the first time boosts have been offered in WoW for cash. It didn't change anything about leveling before.

This is a huge leap of logic to go straight to transactions. Skipping the content is something that I would actually be okay with. If: it was completely acquirable via in-game methods and not tucked behind a price tag.

But you just got done arguing that it is bad game design and a band aid fix for them to offer people the ability to skip content. It is nice to know that you real issue is with micro transactions though.

Games, especially MMOs are based upon a set of rules. When you offer to bend those rules to those who are willing to pay more you break the integrity of the game. This is inherently bad game design.

You've always gotten levels by paying Blizzard though. You don't gain level by not being subscribed. The starter edition is capped in levels until you buy and subscribe to the game. SoR granted levels for paying Blizzard (and it even didn't require you to buy Cataclysm at one point). The rules are not what you think they are.

Returning players already have a head-start on new players. At most they have to put in 24 hours to reach max level. That's a very small amount of time to put in to catch-up considering how many hours end-game content actually takes up.

What if they are level 60? 55? 20? It also doesn't take at most 24 hours to get from 85 to 90.

- - - Updated - - -

Except it does. This is a MMO (Massively multiplayer online game incase you didn't know). This is not a single player game. What other players can and will do does effect me. Everyone who plays the game should be bound by the same rules. Paying money should not give you special privilege over other players.

Except it doesn't. A boosted character is the same as a newly leveled character. They don't get special perks for being boosted. They don't get extra power for being boosted. Everyone who plays the game is bound by the same rules.

[silvercentric]

Having a new 90 on a new server effects the meta the same as having a new 90 on a new server. A server change ensures that there is one new 90 on that server. Competing for all the nodes, drops, raid spots etc that a boosted 90 would. It also doesn't require you to level up a character on a new server, just like boosting does.

Except for that part where that server changed 90 no longer exists on the previous server. Something was not created out of nothing, it was (get this) transferred.

1,3, and 4 is still stale content. Why would I be happy about doing the same content again just because I can do it the entire way through again?

1 and 3 is stale content. But it's less of it.
4 is not stale content. It would be getting EXP for your lower level characters in a passive way while you play your active level 90s at max level.

4 is the same thing as offering boosts for cash but using gold instead of cash. It still has all of the "band aid" fixes that you just got done claiming boosting for cash contains. That seems to indicate that your really motive here is all about real money transactions. And the rest is all being invented as reasons to justify why real money transactions are bad.

As a boost for gold carries all the same advantages and disadvantages as one for cash. That is because it is the same exact boost. You can't argue one is bad while at the same time saying the other is a fine alternative.

I never said they were good solutions. I don't like the gold sink idea either. But I would take it over paying real money for it.

[dusselldorf]

Quality of a product is not proportional to its consumer base. Most would say that "Jersey Shore" is a horrible TV show but that doesn't stop people from watching it.

Uhm, yes it is. If it's a bad design, people won't pay to play it. Period. The fact that you don't like the current design has nothing to do with the quality of the game. In fact, subscribers numbers are the *only* objective measure of a product's success.

[silvercentric]

@rholre
I'm done arguing with you it's obvious that you don't care for the integrity of the game and instead welcome this new era of micro-transactions and instant gratification instead of well designed games.

Uhm, yes it is. If it's a bad design, people won't pay to play it. Period. The fact that you don't like the current design has nothing to do with the quality of the game. In fact, subscribers numbers are the *only* objective measure of a product's success.

Too bad objective success is irrelevant to good game design. Which game is better designed: Angry Birds or Shadow of the Colossus? According to your metric SoTC was a failure and Angry Birds is one of the greatest games ever made.

Do you want the short answer?
"I'm getting it. Sucks to be you."

Shill status: maximum.

[DarkArchon]

It's priced at 60$ to keep the games integrity, as a barrier to dilute a majority of people from instant leveling.

If Blizzard wanted to make money they would have made it 15-20$ and have 15X the people using the service.

The price isn't supposed to be ''reasonable'' that's the entire point of the 60$ to make you think twice about instant leveling.

Think before mindlessly making claims and reasons.

[dusselldorf]

Too bad objective success is irrelevant to good game design. Which game is better designed: Angry Birds or Shadow of the Colossus? According to your metric SoTC was a failure and Angry Birds is one of the greatest games ever made.

And according to you, if everyone in the world plays a game and likes it, the game must be a bad design.

[silvercentric]

And according to you, if everyone in the world plays a game and likes it, the game must be a bad design.

Except that's not what I said at all. I said that it is irrelevant, not inversely proportional.

[gamingmuscle]

This constant "but then we'll have to cut X tier in Y" is such a cop out to avoid addressing issues that need attention.

It's just a convenient phrase to give the stupid masses a little perspective on what something actually takes to get implemented.

[theburned]

glad it's 60 bucks, that makes purchasing a 90 non-trivial.
I would rather level my characters but that's just me.

if you would rather have a 90 right away that is fine, if you look at leveling a character as "work" you would need to spend many hours "working" to make it into a 90, whereas even with a minimum wage job you can earn 60 bucks in about 9 hours, you can't get a level 90 in 9 hours played time.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't like the idea of buying a 90, but tbh it's not buying your way to the finish.

I agree that it isn't buying your way to the finish line, it's buying yourself to catch up to everyone else, and tbh who would like to start up behind everyone else in a race where you are already at an disadvantage. It doesn't change the fact that it points towards a pay to win game which most likely will kill the game, if not most of blizzards games.

It's good that it's expensive some people will buy it, the rest just takes the one that comes with the expansion.

[Deleted]

The high price is to show it's a premium feature and to shoo away casual buyers.

If it were £20, I'd be up in arms, but at £50? That's so high it's blatantly obvious very few would buy it, and as explained if they wanted to make profit they would just set it much lower. By keeping it high it's obviously intended for people with lots of money but little time.

(On a side note, if this price is final then, unless I'm mistaken, it'll be cheaper to just RAF yourself to even 100, ha)

[MoanaLisa]

The Cataclysm leveling re-vamp was a on a completely different level. They changed geography, lore, quests, etc. for entire zones. This constant "but then we'll have to cut X tier in Y" is such a cop out to avoid addressing issues that need attention.

You're picking and choosing now at some semantic level. The 1-60 revamp was for all intent and purposes a pass at improving leveling for 1-60. It proved to be more a problem than a solution to anything as nice as I thought it was the first three or four times through it. The problem with improving leveling is that whatever they do that will get old after a while too and they end up spending a lot of time on a piece of the game that is relatively unused compared to endgame. Perhaps adding content scaling to the entire game will make it more attractive to some and I expect that to happen. At the end of the day though I've seen Outland maybe 13 times since BC, Northrend eight or nine times, etc. If I have the option to skip it and it's worth it to me, I certainly will.

Improving 1-X is an endless pit of work that will detract from what's important for most players and that's end game. Blizzard has accepted the view of many that the game starts at endgame. That's all there is to it. The other stuff is there for those who want it. For those who don't there are now options.

Again, the mirror of 'paying to skip content' is 'paying to get to the content you want to play' which for many people will sound sensible. If you don't want to pay you don't have to. Spending tons of time over the rest of the life of the game keeping leveling content fresh is a time/resource sink that doesn't warrant the ROI. I'm quite certain that if there were a lot of people, like more than half of the game population, actively playing in 1-85 they might consider a different solution. I don't think that's true based on observation and apparently Blizzard agrees.

[DarkArchon]

MoanaLisa normally says what i was thinking and wanted to say but never wanted to invest the effort wording it. Thx Lisa!

One thing i luv tho is when someone says something completely valid and correct it's normally looked over and ignored and people go back to targeting flawed views and comments.

Gotta luv the internet.

[adorich]

Blizzard has already learned the lesson of trying to improve the leveling content in a game as large as WoW. They don't need to go through it a second time to understand that it's not worth the effort. For what it's worth, I believe that level scaled content will be in the game sooner than later so getting into a queue for AQ may happen. I'm not sure that that will be the most popular part of leveling but I'm sure it will be fun a few times. Which is exactly the point and the problem. Many people have been through the 'leveling content' more often than they want to and no amount of 'improvement' is going to be a permanent or even enduring fix. Huge effort to do, people soak it up in a few weeks or months and here we are again. What they're doing is a perfectly rational solution which is to concentrate development on where most of the people are. You might believe that twinks are a substantial or majority percentage of PVP players. I doubt it and that doesn't even speak to whether or not PVP is something that most people do in any case.

So yes, everyone that for years has go on about how the game starts at endgame, Blizzard agrees with you and is going to enable people to optionally make it so. It's really not as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be.

Where in my post do I say Blizzard should re-do quests? You're missing my point entirely: leveling content doesn't have to be questing. There is tons of content Blizzard could open up to leveling players that was once 'end game content'. The content already exists.

I also never mentioned twinking in my previous post. Low level pvp is an alternative to questing. It's horribly imbalanced for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with twinking. More players might spend time in leveling bgs and dungeons if Blizzard made even the most basic attempt at resolving some of their issues. These aren't Cata level changes. No reworking hundreds of quests, no designing of new models, no reshaping Azeroth or creating new class abilities, just adjusting some numbers. Nothing will change about the leveling experience as long as people are willing to spend money to avoid it.

Couldn't the bolded part of the post I quoted be true about current endgame content as well? Why should Blizzard put any effort into end game content when people are just going to get bored with it in a few months and quit playing? Blizzard should be finding ways to keep players interested in old and new content, instead of charging us to skip it.

[ringpriest]

Just a quick quip, how can anyone say that a game that has retained *millions* of monthly paying subscribers for *over a decade* is a bad game design with a straight face?

1) Charging players for the 'privilege' of skipping over large amounts of a content that Blizzard themselves have rendered dull, meaningless and boring is a terrible piece of game design.

2) You're a glass half-full type, I see. Another way to describe the exact same set of events is that Blizzard has lost over 4 million paying, monthly subscribers in just three years. (A trend I fully expect to continue in a downward direction. Not that Blizzard will care, they'll still be raking in plenty of net profits from those screaming "It's not pay to win!" while they fork out ever-increasing amounts of cash to 'win'. Just never mind that WoW will be turning into an online fantasy casino instead of an MMORPG.)

[DarkArchon]

Where in my post do I say Blizzard should re-do quests? You're missing my point entirely: leveling content doesn't have to be questing. There is tons of content Blizzard could open up to leveling players that was once 'end game content'. The content already exists.

I also never mentioned twinking in my previous post. Low level pvp is an alternative to questing. It's horribly imbalanced for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with twinking. More players might spend time in leveling bgs and dungeons if Blizzard made even the most basic attempt at resolving some of their issues. These aren't Cata level changes. No reworking hundreds of quests, no designing of new models, no reshaping Azeroth or creating new class abilities, just adjusting some numbers. Nothing will change about the leveling experience as long as people are willing to spend money to avoid it.

Couldn't the bolded part of the post I quoted be true about current endgame content as well? Why should Blizzard put any effort into end game content when people are just going to get bored with it in a few months and quit playing? Blizzard should be finding ways to keep players interested in old and new content, instead of charging us to skip it.

Blizzard already said patches will be more frequent in WoD then past expansions which is the correct response to keep people interested. Working on old zones would not keep a mass majority of people interested because it offers no satisfaction in actual progress of a character. The amount of people wanting to lvl a new toon threw reworked quests is very small and unappealing. However like Blizzard plans, releasing end game content more frequently is appealing to the majority.

[Chapina]

what are you haters crying for? its another man/womans money and choice to do what they want with it.. some of you are just lame and have nothign better to do. its their choice and their money.. either spend it yourself or stop crying with the commentary..

[ringpriest]

It's priced at 60$ to keep the games integrity, as a barrier to dilute a majority of people from instant leveling.

If Blizzard wanted to make money they would have made it 15-20$ and have 15X the people using the service.

The price isn't supposed to be ''reasonable'' that's the entire point of the 60$ to make you think twice about instant leveling.

Think before mindlessly making claims and reasons.

Ah, thank goodness for kindly, wise Blizzard, always with the players' best interests at heart, even when they're charging them four months worth of game time to flip a handful of bits. (Why would instant leveling be a problem anyway? After all, as has been claimed endlessly by Blizzard's supporters, "it's not Pay 2 Win".) Since you obviously "Think before mindlessly making claims and reasons" you no doubt have some objective, external support for your claim (which I'm certain isn't mindless Blizzard worship) and some hard statistics to back up your numbers, right?

[Ordinator]

Ah, thank goodness for kindly, wise Blizzard, always with the players' best interests at heart, even when they're charging them four months worth of game time to flip a handful of bits. (Why would instant leveling be a problem anyway? After all, as has been claimed endlessly by Blizzard's supporters, "it's not Pay 2 Win".) Since you obviously "Think before mindlessly making claims and reasons" you no doubt have some objective, external support for your claim (which I'm certain isn't mindless Blizzard worship) and some hard statistics to back up your numbers, right?

More people need called out like this on blindly supporting blizzards awful game designs. And let me tell you this one is amongst the worst.