Do you think with annualized expansions, they should cost less?

[IzoGray]

I absolutely do. Less development time means less content. Not only are we paying monthly, now they want us to pay yearly just to play end game.


Here's why an annualized COD works every year. It has tons of players who stay in each game every year. Not everyone jumps to the next game every year. Black Ops II still has hundreds of thousands of players online at any given time. Same thing with the first Black Ops.

If WoW did this, you could only play end game for about 11 months out of the year, before you have to buy the new expansion and start leveling again. I don't know about you but I like the fact that I have a long time to pvp in the same bracket or raid at the same level with other people. I can stop playing and pick up the game again without having to level sometimes. All I would have to worry about is gear. Starter gear is easy to get.

In CoD, you don't worry about any of this. There are no levels seperating people and the player base is large enough in each game that you never need to upgrade.

The same can't be said for WoW. There aren't level 85 brackets or level 70 brackets that are competitive. It just won't work out the same. What do you think?

I'm thinking if it's annualized, the expansion should about $25 maximum. Remember, no matter how they spin it, more expansions will mean smaller content.
And don't use the quantity of quality analogy because that's still less than a year of development time.

[apepi]

I actually agree with you, I do not see that we are getting the same amount of content, not like wotlk level atleast.

[OzoAndIndi]

Yeah, smaller expansions should be cheaper.

On top of that, with them adding to the set, selling boxes in stores gets a little ridiculous if it's a new one each year? Just sell additional (and clearly marked) expansion-related cards that are key + time and have it install by download.

[Baphomette]

I'm very impressed by how well they've executed Panda on the 6mo tiers with extra content 2mo into each tier.

I think I would be a lot less impressed if they decided to have two 6mo tiers or three 4mo tiers per expansion.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I'm very impressed by how well they've executed Panda on the 6mo tiers with extra content 2mo into each tier.

I think I would be a lot less impressed if they decided to have two 6mo tiers or three 4mo tiers per expansion.

This.

As for the prices for expansions, as long as they can dish out high quality content instead of more lower quality patches, I'm fine with 60$ a year per expac.

[Deleted]

Sorry to make you unhappy the next plans are 3 month 6.0 3 month 6.1 - 4 month max break and then next xpac....
and ofc you wont pay less - you still want your ce dont you? ^^

[MoanaLisa]

Yeah, I do. And there should be a three-tier price system with downloads only costing less than the normal box price. Say $24.95 for a download, $29.95 for the box and $59.95 for the collector's edition.

[Rivin]

Well, I certainly wouldn't complain if the price was lowered, but I have no problems paying $40 for an expansion that I'll play for a year considering that most games cost $60 and last maybe a few weeks.

[IzoGray]

Well, I certainly wouldn't complain if the price was lowered, but I have no problems paying $40 for an expansion that I'll play for a year considering that most games cost $60 and last maybe a few weeks.

No offense but you're part of the problem You are saying "yes I will pay you what I've been paying you for less content." You're basically suckering into them, which is not good for consumers.

[LilSaihah]

I'd personally prefer they moved from a sub model to an expansion-centric B2P model, but they'll probably never do that.

[inboundpaper]

No offense but you're part of the problem You are saying "yes I will pay you what I've been paying you for less content." You're basically suckering into them, which is not good for consumers.

But its not less content, it just comes faster.

[Rivin]

No offense but you're part of the problem You are saying "yes I will pay you what I've been paying you for less content." You're basically suckering into them, which is not good for consumers.

If we actually get less entertaining content, then yes, that would be a fair complaint. So far, despite all of their efforts to make shorter expansions, that hasn't happened yet. If they actually manage to cut off WoD at the 12-month mark and we do end up with a whole raid tier less or whatever, then that might bother me. Right now I have no reason to believe that's what will happen though.

[Normie]

"Less development time" doesn't mean "less content." 10,000 people working on an expansion for 1 year will probably produce more content than 1 person working on an expansion for 2 years.

But that said, I think that what is likely to give in WoW's pricing model is the game price rather than the subscription price. The game price is already considerably less now than it was three years ago. Although the one-time purchase revenue is a Big Deal to Blizzard, I don't think the market is going to bear $40+ much longer. I think the next expansion might be available for $20-30 although perhaps only for limited time windows, and ultimately, the game may be (should be) free to download.

[Karnige]

i think it should be like 20 bucks or something because we subscribe anyways

[Deleted]

well ofc, so much less content it should be at least halved!

instead of 35gbp it would be worth 17.99gbp if that

[Rucati]

No offense but you're part of the problem You are saying "yes I will pay you what I've been paying you for less content." You're basically suckering into them, which is not good for consumers.

Actually that's not really even true at all. Paying $40 a year for an expansion compared to $60 for one game that will last a few weeks is a good deal no matter how you look at it. Hell, if they sold each individual raid for $40 each it would still be a better investment than buying a different game.

Regardless of the amount of content, as long as there's some content, it will be a good use of money. Truly makes no difference what it costs to me, I'll buy it regardless, because I know it'll be worth it. If it's $40 then I'm getting a good deal, if it's $100 per expac I'd still buy it because $100 for one year of entertainment is a good deal.

[Deleted]

The deciding factor in something like this would be the amount of content in the annual expansions. If the content is on par in terms of volume as other Xpacks, it should cost just as much.

[Deleted]

Well, I certainly wouldn't complain if the price was lowered, but I have no problems paying $40 for an expansion that I'll play for a year considering that most games cost $60 and last maybe a few weeks.

I guess you forgot the part where you are paying $15 a month.

[SirReal]

i unsubbed because of the terrible direction WoD is taking the game....but I think $40 annual xpacs are ok

[Deleted]

If it's $40 then I'm getting a good deal, if it's $100 per expac I'd still buy it because $100 for one year of entertainment is a good deal.

It boggles my mind that you would be willing to pay 100 dollars and then 15 dollars per month and be happy with that.

<--- Mind Blown