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

[Katchii]

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?

I'd wager it's because they know there will be some folks who only sub for Classic, or people will stay subbed longer because they'll have both Retail and Classic on the same account and will play one or the other.

Either way, it means they've looked at the numbers and they have accepted the cost it will take to maintain and feel like they'll be able to do so without changing the sub.

This is a huge multi million dollar corporation, they didn't just pull this decision out of thin air.

[Projectmars]

Am I the only person who recalls blizz saying you will either get the classic sub with your normal sub, or you can pay a reduced amount for a Classic only sub?

They may have mentioned it as a possibility back when they first announced it, but they never explicitly said what they would be doing sub-wise until last Blizzcon.

It was actually Cataclysm pre-patch that got rid of weapon skills, not Wrath.

Still technically "in Wrath" though.

[Aeula]

Probably not, but you can’t care much about Classic if you’re not willing to pay for it.

[Aydinx2]

So what? how is that relevant honestly? Current WoW is successful already. Why do you care so much of how it is presented to the shareholders? The WoW franchise will make more money because of classic, but that has never been a secret to anyone. That was always what it was going to happen. What they intend to do with this bundling is probably draw people from classic to retail and vice-versa. Which can only be good for business and for the game. Classic and retail are not competitors, they are complimentary of each other. In droughts or slow times, you will play classic, when a new patch hits, you will play retail.

I really don't get this argument.

- - - Updated - - -



And what is the problem with that? I honestly do not understand. You will also get retail, to a certain point (Legion?), for free too.

My point is that I dont want retail. I ONLY want Classic.
And my "argument" about the combined subs for shareholders wasn't an argument, it was just an observation.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably not, but you can’t care much about Classic if you’re not willing to pay for it.

I care about NieR: Automata but I'm not going to pay 120 to play it.

[Katchii]

And that it made sense over 10 years ago is no reason at all for the price to stay the same.

If you're really hung up on that you should be willing to pay more than $15 a month, because the dollar doesn't go as far as it did back then. Inflation and all that.

[Aeula]

My point is that I dont want retail. I ONLY want Classic.
And my "argument" about the combined subs for shareholders wasn't an argument, it was just an observation.

- - - Updated - - -



I care about NieR: Automata but I'm not going to pay 120 to play it.

But you would pay 60 (Or whatever the launch price was)?

Sub is the same cost as it was in Vanilla.

You people wanted #NoChanges. This is what you get.

[Grimlokh]

How was the price for Vanilla WoW subs in 2004? Oh...15 dollars, what a shock blizzard you wanna charge 15 dollars!!??? Lazy greedy blizurd. Wanna play like back then? Pay like back then...don`t see a problem.

[Groven4]

Classic will be included with the retail/live sub, so youll get classic whether you want it or not.

This is the only reason I would play. I'm not interested in paying a second sub fee for a game that will not get my main attention.

[Sluvs]

My point is that I dont want retail. I ONLY want Classic.
And my "argument" about the combined subs for shareholders wasn't an argument, it was just an observation.

- - - Updated - - -



I care about NieR: Automata but I'm not going to pay 120 to play it.

And what of people that only wants retail?

[Drutt]

It's like people don't realise datacenters cost a boatload of money to operate.

[Regalosh]

Let's say that a lesser sub fee for Classic got introduced, something like 5$, while Retail and Classic combined sub would remain at 15$. Technically this would mean, that you are paying now only 10$ for retail and the remaining 5$ for classic, as a standalone sub fee for classic is already available.

Also Blizzard would want to avoid raising the combined sub fee to 20$ to even it out..

However, than many people who are still paying the combined sub could suddenly start asking Blizzard to also create a "retail only" sub for 10$, using the same reasoning: "Why do I have to pay for classic as well, if I'm not interested in playing it at all? Let me pay only the new price of retail, which is 10$ instead of 15$."

This could easily cut deep into the income from subs. If we assume how volatile the playerbase of Classic might going to be (meaning steady and fast drop in subs for classic after some time) and at the same time also less income from retail thanks to creating a new "retail only sub" for less price, this would be disastrous for the revenue.

I also believe, that the success of retail and the fact that it is still being able to produce noticeable revenue to the company is the main factor why making classic was possible at the first place.

I can't imagine Blizzard would have listened to the fanbase and start a project this big, which is basically a fan-service... I'm not implying they won't win anything by releasing Classic and boasting sub numbers as well... however I am personally fine with a WIN-WIN situation like this. Fans gets their precious Classic, Blizz gets their subs higher.

[Agnastyr]

OP is your brain not working too good?

[Projectmars]

Off topic but seeing as there was achievements to get 400 unarmed skill and the like; are we sure it wasn't Cataclysm when they dropped weapon skills?

Getting 400 unarmed skill was seen as pretty pointless and time consuming so it was the perfect thing to make an achievement for.

[unbound]

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.

lol

Do you honestly think the price of BfA and the subs have anything to do with costs? Of course they don't. Blizz could have sold BfA for $25 and charge $8/mo and still be very profitable. They charge what they charge because people are willing to pay it.

The same is true for Classic. If you don't want to pay it, that's fine...Blizz doesn't care about you as an individual, they are looking at what they think the masses will pay. This is also the reason they are looking harder at mobile...not because they are failing with the existing models (although they are sliding down a bit), but because they are looking at even higher profits off mobile suckers...er, players.

[sirethas]

Unless you're a goblin living in your moms attic, time = money friend. So time spent farming gold to pay for the sub is still money.

$15 isn't a lot (for me at least), but it's AN amount of money and even if it's a single cent, I decide if the product is worth my money. The $15 pays for full access, when I only want limited access (Classic). It doesn't pay for development because they're not going to develop more for Classic (if they do it's not Classic and I don't want it). Customer service is the only one that I would pay for, but other companies and products give it to you for years after you buy a product that doesn't have a monthly fee, so why do I need to pay $15 a month?

"Stop thinking you pay for the game (because you aren't)". True. I've been a paying customer for years now but BfA being a boring grindfest with no goals in sight had me stop altogether. The only Blizzard products that interests me now are Classic (never got to play it) and WC3 Remaster (never got to play it).

And literally anyone can give their opinion on the value of a product or service. You don't need to be a paying customer to say that an amount of money is too much.

Anyone can have opinion about service price but it doesn't mean they are right. I didn't make research myself what's the cost of running such servers to make the price so it's profitable for Blizzard.
Also, restricting your access to only Classic doesn't save them any money. Subscription on it's own give access to modern game minus most current Expansion. What they did was to expand this access to Classic server without increasing the subscription price tag.

Paying with gold was a bad example from my side I admit that, since you won't be able to use that in Classic (which is good of course, it has big potential to completly fuck over economy).

As for development, I guess it's not in a way as, developing new content for Classic. More like maintenance, keeping servers healthy and game bug free. Not sure if you can count this in customer service? But then again, who knows, maybe after players consume all classic content they might built up something on it, or just keep it as it is and classic wow will be like museum. What I wonder is how long will it be alive with no further content. Is it profitable for them to keep it up indefinite time? What I imagine could happen is after some longer time after Classic wow content is all used up they might try community driven development like OSRS? But then again, runescape have much smaller community and their idea is much more consistent about what they want from osrs unlike wow community. Just looking at forums the opinions are on such a huge range that anything what would be voted by players could have disasterous impact.

[tacoloco]

My point is that I dont want retail. I ONLY want Classic.

You've made this abundantly clear, since you've been repeating it in almost every post.
This is not Burger King. You don't get to have it your way.

[Deianeira]

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.

I assume then we can say have fun with your life since you wont be playing. Because they will not change this payment method. They know that very many of the people that want to play classic want to play it when content is in a lull between expansions or patches. And they know that the easiest and most efficient way to accomodate them is to include classic in the retail fee

[Faroth]

We paid a full sub during Classic. Paying a full sub for Classic now seems like it maintains the original experience.

This seem like complaining about getting what you want, but now you want it for free.

[vipers]

My point is that I dont want retail. I ONLY want Classic.
And my "argument" about the combined subs for shareholders wasn't an argument, it was just an observation.

- - - Updated - - -



I care about NieR: Automata but I'm not going to pay 120 to play it.

its same subscribe cost now than on 14 years ago and now you just going to get both current and classic on same price

[Echocho]

Suddenly #nochanges went out the window huh?