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

[Jaylock]

Just as the title suggests, if Blizzard lowered the subscription cost to $9.99 a Month, would you be for or against such a change?

[Itisamuh]

The cheaper, the better. Especially when so many other great games cost nothing per month.

[Baracuda]

I doubt many who quit do it because of the subscription price and I doubt a lower one would bring them back, unless it was removed completely. So that means less money for Blizzard and less content for us so... against.

[Deleted]

The cheaper, the better. Especially when so many other great games cost nothing per month.

yep. how could anyone be against lowering the cost?

[Tonyman64]

yep. how could anyone be against lowering the cost?

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

[Kelimbror]

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.

[ablib]

yep. how could anyone be against lowering the cost?

I would. There's repercussions for a company making less money. Those repercussions are passed onto the consumer. The $15 fee it is now is still ridiculously cheap, and is the same price as it was 10 years ago when WoW launched. Even though the cost to make and support the game has sky rocketed in the past 10 years, the cost has stayed the same. Adjusted for inflation, the game actually costs less money per month, than it did 10 years ago.

I voted other, because I don't think cost specifics are of concern to just about anyone who plays these games.

Pretty much this. People who complain about sub cost, have other issues.

[StrayFox]

Of course I would love a lower subscription fee, though I'd rather it go free with a premium account option for a $15 dollar fee. Any bit of money helps the game and I like the idea of having everything unlocked for me if I pay.

I don't see Blizzard removing it, rather they would make the game free.

[Krommm]

The cheaper, the better. Especially when so many other great games cost nothing per month.

^Agreed. Blizz needs to step it up with content as they have become complacent, this coming from a pretty big fanboy.

[Mawnix]

^Agreed. Blizz needs to step it up with content as they have become complacent, this coming from a pretty big fanboy.

IMO Content's been better than ever.

I don't care for the price personally since I have no problem paying for it, but others I can understand.

[Balazzar]

I get that this is largely a troll post. But one thing to consider is that in the grand scheme, unless they charge like $30 a month, it won't really matter if they lower the cost. People who are bored with this game are not quitting because "shit this just costs too much." They quit when the realize its been 2-3 weeks since they logged on and they have no urge to relog.

[Deathgoose]

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

- - - Updated - - -

I get that this is largely a troll post.

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

[thedingleberry]

If they want to drive more traffic to the blizzard online store, then they should make it F2P so that you have to go buy things like extra action bars.

[Deleted]

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

fair enough but one could argue that a lower cost would attract more players thus resulting in a net gain

[SL1200]

Depends. If lowering the sub fee that much would bring in enough players to increase profits for blizzard, then i'm for lowering it. If lowering the sub fee won't bring in enough players to increase profits, then i'm against it.

I want the game to be profitable enough that they'll invest the time and resources into it to make it great again.

[Somarlane]

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 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.

[Belloc]

IMO Content's been better than ever.

I agree. Throne of Thunder and Siege of Orgrimmar have been two of the best raids in recent years. Indeed, they're probably the two best raids since Ulduar or ICC (debatable). Patch content has been great, too. MoP is easily one of my favorite expansions.

As to the question in the OP: Of course I'd be for paying less, but it'd be foolish to suggest that the game would improve because of it. Sub numbers probably wouldn't rise much while content would suffer from the reduced revenue.

edit: Oh, Jaylock has a new avatar. Had I known this was one of this threads, I wouldn't have bothered replying =/

[Redpanda]

im all for cheaper shit but 13 dollars a month isnt that big of a deal to begin with.

[Baracuda]

I get that this is largely a troll post. But one thing to consider is that in the grand scheme, unless they charge like $30 a month, it won't really matter if they lower the cost. People who are bored with this game are not quitting because "shit this just costs too much." They quit when the realize its been 2-3 weeks since they logged on and they have no urge to relog.

That's my point. They're still going to get bored again if they try the game with a lower fee. Only way for Blizzard to keep bringing good content while ALSO coming up with new ideas to revitalize the game (which returning players might stay for) is to have the money to do it, a big budget cut isn't going to help that happen.

[Sunius]

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%, which in turn result in people layoffs, and that would result in longer content patches and hit in their quality.

I don't think current price of $15 is significant at all. One night out can cost 2-3 times as much. And considering how much enjoyable time you get from those $15, it's value is already tremendous.