Am I the only one who won't pay a full sub just for classic?

[Deleted]

Classic is at a reduced fee. The sub price of $15 is not worth the same value as it was in 2004.

You'd be paying $20 today for the price of WoW in 2004.

So you're saying that the sub for the main game not increasing over the years is a reflection of reduced quality since it retained it's sub price?

[Halyon]

Literally this. The same people whining about QOL changes are the same nerds screeching about a sub. Its not even shocking.

That's an adorable assumption you got there.

[dakalro]

So, classic uses current client tech - which needs updating and fixing; classic uses current server software - which needs updating and fixing; classic uses current server hardware - which needs updating and fixing and upkeep; classic will have support - needs upkeep; classic will have bugfixing updates, maybe some content updates - needs a budget.

None of classic would have happened on old software/hardware - simply too expensive for Blizzard so it's not like that was ever a choice.

All you miss from the full experience is large content updates - a big budget but probably not so much out of your $15 a month.

[Aydinx2]

So, classic uses current client tech - which needs updating and fixing; classic uses current server software - which needs updating and fixing; classic uses current server hardware - which needs updating and fixing and upkeep; classic will have support - needs upkeep; classic will have bugfixing updates, maybe some content updates - needs a budget.

None of classic would have happened on old software/hardware - simply too expensive for Blizzard so it's not like that was ever a choice.

All you miss from the full experience is large content updates - a big budget but probably not so much out of your $15 a month.

I've already mentioned this multiple times in this thread so I'm surprised people keep commenting that the price is due to upkeep costs.
If Classic has upkeep costs, why does the subscription not change at all?

[chooi]

Minimum wage in Illinois is $8.25 a hour...

Proving my point, thanks. Work 2 hours, play WoW the next month.

[Halyon]

Because people want to play Classic but are gated by this weird payment model of having to be subbed to another product.
And what money goes to what upkeep? If Classic had any upkeep, it wouldn't be free with the normal "upkeep" price for retail WoW.

It's like vanilla had a sub back then too. Now it just gives you access to 2 versions instead of one. Stop complaining over a non-issue.

[ccckkk]

Think Blizz have missed a trick. Better game surely worth more?...

[Accendor]

Title says it all. If I'm one of the few who are only interested in classic, fine I probably won't pay it. To be honest, I think I got it right though. Why pay the full price for a game that is old and you've played it already? Also, I've seen a post somewhere that some costs that can be ascribed to a sub can be reduced. I believe split subs would only be fair to players like me, and hopefully you.

No, I actually think the current planned system is very good and there is no need for separate subs. If the game is good, it is good and you play for it. And is very cheap either way, be glad this is no f2p microtransaction title (yet)

[riptal]

Title says it all. If I'm one of the few who are only interested in classic, fine I probably won't pay it. To be honest, I think I got it right though. Why pay the full price for a game that is old and you've played it already? Also, I've seen a post somewhere that some costs that can be ascribed to a sub can be reduced. I believe split subs would only be fair to players like me, and hopefully you.

You don't pay for Classic. You pay for retail and they give you access to classic! It's like a new option to give what wow players asked since forever. I'm so tired of people asking for free products all the time! People want quality but don't want to pay for anyhting!

Why you don't start your own business to give free products to anyone?

[Donald Hellscream]

I'd be on board with classic players getting a lowered sub fee if it also was the other way around so that people playing the current iteration could opt for a cheaper subscription but no access to the classic servers.

Unless that happens the fairest way is for both parts of the playerbase to pay the same subscription fee.

[Azerate]

Classic will be an optional fun mode for the real game, I think it being under the main subscription makes the most sense.

[Geeky]

Would you mind explaining how it's fair to charge people $15/m for an old game that was already released, updated, and will not receive any more updates? Explain to me how it's worth $15/m as opposed to being B2P. I think that is straight up robbery and find it hilarious that people don't see it that way. If you already play on the live servers, then sure, it's a steal.

15 dollars a month if your only intent is to play Vanilla, is absolutely ridiculous. But sure, people can keep defending that if they want.

So there shouldn't be any compensation for the work done to get the game ready to be played, for server upkeep, pay the staff, etc?

[Deleted]

<snip>
By the way, you should have written "its" - when you're criticizing people for their lack of education, it's helpful to use good grammar.

Oh geez, look at him, grammar argument o/

[Aydinx2]

If you don't want to pay a sub you don't really want to play classic.

If you hold this opinion you don't really have a brain. Not much space for IQ there.

[tacoloco]

Pretty much this lol. I feel like this whole thread is some kind of joke, like, how dare they charge for a product?

There are some people who are convinced that because they paid for old classic that they're entitled to new classic for free.

[dakalro]

I've already mentioned this multiple times in this thread so I'm surprised people keep commenting that the price is due to upkeep costs.
If Classic has upkeep costs, why does the subscription not change at all?

Supply and demand. Why hasn't subscription price gone up along with inflation.

And you're misunderstanding, I don't mean there's extra upkeep that classic is adding (it isn't adding that much on top of existing) but the existing upkeep that it's using, so it will have to share - simply business.

So now there's two products sharing the same upkeep costs. At the end of the day, playing retail or classic you're still using the same resources from the company except for one specific group, the new content teams.

The retail playing guy would pay for the classic playing guy also if classic would only have a flat fee. Maybe I should troll with "Am I the only one who won't pay a full sub if classic gets a flat fee? Why am I paying for classic to get all the back-end fixes and technology when I don't use it?"

[Geeky]

Doesn't sound like you do either. I forget the exact number, but it was something like 70 million to build all of classic wow.

This time around, they are simply porting the data to a new environment and fixing bugs. Sure it's a pain in the ass, but presumably it's going to cost a fraction of the money, particularly because they don't have to build login infrastructure etc.

So it's not gonna be that much.

At $15 a month, you get 1 million subscribers for 5 months, and you earn enough money to finance the entire development of vanilla (which by the way, also produced assets that were used in BC).

So yeah, $15 a month does sound like a lot of money for those of us who don't plan to play retail.

TL,DR... as long as we're talking about subscriber numbers with 7 digits, WoW is a cash cow.

By the way, you should have written "its" - when you're criticizing people for their lack of education, it's helpful to use good grammar.

At least you aren't paying the retail price for the game itself.

[Aydinx2]

It's like vanilla had a sub back then too. Now it just gives you access to 2 versions instead of one. Stop complaining over a non-issue.

It's only a non-issue if you don't have any concept of value or quality of a product.
I am not willing to pay $15 a month for Classic, I don't care if it had a sub back then. It's 2018.

"But they have upkeep costs" -You
No they don't. If they did have serious upkeep costs they wouldn't make Classic included in the current sub without changing the price.

The point is that I don't want access to 2 versions. I just want Classic and I'm not going to pay more for it then it's worth.

[tacoloco]

If you hold this opinion you don't really have a brain. Not much space for IQ there.

Listen, Sparky. It's not going to be free. It will never be free. Get over it.

[Aydinx2]

Supply and demand. Why hasn't subscription price gone up along with inflation.

And you're misunderstanding, I don't mean there's extra upkeep that classic is adding (it isn't adding that much on top of existing) but the existing upkeep that it's using, so it will have to share - simply business.

So now there's two products sharing the same upkeep costs. At the end of the day, playing retail or classic you're still using the same resources from the company except for one specific group, the new content teams.

The retail playing guy would pay for the classic playing guy also if classic would only have a flat fee. Maybe I should troll with "Am I the only one who won't pay a full sub if classic gets a flat fee? Why am I paying for classic to get all the back-end fixes and technology when I don't use it?"

Why not just make Classic seperate with a smaller subscription fee?
Why can Classic only be either included in retail or a flat amount?