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

[Great Destiny Man]

Current WoW compared to Classic is like Switch compared to original SNES, so no, that doesn't work.

No matter how far you stretch this argument out SNES never had any online connectivity, unlike the other 3 parts in your example (and even Switch charges you to play online these days). To that end this comparison isn't valid.

[FelPlague]

They did say they were looking at alternatives though, right? I am still hopeful they will find some other way. I saw an idea of splitting every server into 3 for example: Illidan 1, Illidan 2 and Illidan 3 and then merging those 3 servers after a few weeks into one Illidan server. I think that will work best and people won't be mad about it at all.

That is literally sharding, but it effects all zones not just starting zones, you cant play with other people on the other versions of the server, and its done manually instead of auto.

so literallty sharding, but worse

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

When SNES came out, it was $200 for console and $60-$80 for one game, I wonder why I can buy SNES mini with 21 games for $80, it should have the same price.

Well, Blizzard will let you have Classic WoW for free...but you still have to pay to use their servers.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the problem with a lot of returning players. If people don't care about current live servers and only want to play classic why should they pay full price sub.

I myself don't mind because I'll probably play both but I can understand if a lot of people that wants to return would then decide otherwise because of the price.

For years people have been clamoring at Blizzard to bring back Vanilla servers and they'd pay the sub fee for it.

Now, Blizzard is doing exactly that...and those same people are like "Well, I don't wanna pay full price"

[honne1]

it's definitely not unreasonable to be charged for classic. i constantly hear about people complaining and it irks me to no end.

[Lucarocks92]

I don't want my subscription inflating the retail conference calls of "we had 2 millolion subscription growth for WOW, this means lots of players are enjoying the current BFA game"

That is the reason they are allowing one sub to play both because it makes the game look more successful when in actual fact all the growth will come from classic only

That is why I would prefer to just pay for classic and nothing else but I will still pay a sub but I will just feel bad about it

[Mosotti]

This is not an "old game". This is a new game that tries to be like the old game. Also these topics are fucking retarded, because we all know everybody will pay 15 fucking dollars, unless they are fucking homeless...

- - - Updated - - -

mai avem servetele?

[slime]

Seems impossible.. but bfa is so bad ... and legion was such a grind I think it burned me out of even trying the vanilla experience.

[Nurvus]

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?

Simple - because people asked for it, and servers have a cost to maintain.
It's included in the Retail sub, so for all purposes, Classic is actually B2P.

People made a big deal out of it.
How Classic > Retail.
How they'd rather pay a sub to play Classic than Retail.

To be honest, Classic will server 1 purpose only - reminding Blizzard what players ACTUALLY enjoy about WoW, so that maybe they'll remove stupid features like introducing Titanforging.

[Corruptus]

#nochanges, lowering cost of the sub is change. Enjoy your double-edged sword or, you know, move on.

[Playintrafic]

want to play classic why should they pay full price sub.

#nochanges

Also, you had to pay 14.99 in 2004 so really its cheaper now, as if the sub had increased with inflation it would be about 20$ a month now.

[Lurker1]

Funny thing is blizzard is about to make a crapton of money based on a old outdated version of wow they are very smart i tell you ill able to play the new stuff forever soon becasue of that it's a win win for everybody! I got zero plans to play classic but im sure as hell happy its going to fuel the real wow !

[Thrallinor]

Well, the vocal group of classic player want an "authentic" experience and paying the full price for classic is pretty authentic. AND you get free access to the owned retail part as bonus

[Deventh]

This is just sharding without sharding. They are not going to do this when they have a far simpler solution by just using sharding.

Not true though, because with sharding you are getting phased differently every time and you might not encounter the same people on the server. While the solution that I proposed will keep all players on Illidan 1 seeing each other and then after some weeks or months or however long it takes for Vanilla to die down they will merge the 3 servers. It won't be huge issue at the time when most people will have passed through the leveling zones.

It has the same concept, but it is different. Think of sharding as a random server mixer that separates x amount of people every time in different blocks. You can be in block A today, but the person you met yesterday will be on block b. You will not meet each other unless you phase in his block. While with the multiple server merges you will keep seeing the same person for however long it takes for the game to slow down on the influx of players.

That is literally sharding, but it effects all zones not just starting zones, you cant play with other people on the other versions of the server, and its done manually instead of auto.

so literallty sharding, but worse

Read above.

And if you still think the idea sucks then I don't know what to tell you. But it's always better to merge servers together anyway. The fact of the matter is they use sharding right now mainly because of "dead" servers (and cross realm BG's, Dungeons and Raids ofc). Servers that very few people play on. So instead of merging them to other servers they use the sharding technology to redistribute everyone accordingly. It's not bad to merge servers, people. It's way worse to use sharding as the tool to do it instead.

[Mhalix]

Christ I can't believe people are still going on complaining about the fact that you need a live subscription to access Classic, All I know is the fact that I don't care one bit and am simply happy that I will have the "Opportunity" to go and play classic. I for one sure as hell did not expect blizzard to do this for free, So that said I have nothing to bitch about at all and will be more then happy to pay what I normally pay to play wow and also have the chance to play classic when it goes live

[Deleted]

Christ I can't believe people are still going on complaining about the fact that you need a live subscription to access Classic, All I know is the fact that I don't care one bit and am simply happy that I will have the "Opportunity" to go and play classic. I for one sure as hell did not expect blizzard to do this for free, So that said I have nothing to bitch about at all and will be more then happy to pay what I normally pay to play wow and also have the chance to play classic when it goes live

Indeed, we got classic and it really was a hard fought battle. Look at blizzard's stance on it 3 years ago. Be grateful for what you have

[Spookysheep]

There is NO SUB fee for classic. You get it FREE with your regular sub. Stop whining, gosh!

/Napoleon Dynamite voice off

[Armourboy]

Not true though, because with sharding you are getting phased differently every time and you might not encounter the same people on the server. While the solution that I proposed will keep all players on Illidan 1 seeing each other and then after some weeks or months or however long it takes for Vanilla to die down they will merge the 3 servers. It won't be huge issue at the time when most people will have passed through the leveling zones.

It has the same concept, but it is different. Think of sharding as a random server mixer that separates x amount of people every time in different blocks. You can be in block A today, but the person you met yesterday will be on block b. You will not meet each other unless you phase in his block. While with the multiple server merges you will keep seeing the same person for however long it takes for the game to slow down on the influx of players.


Read above.

And if you still think the idea sucks then I don't know what to tell you. But it's always better to merge servers together anyway. The fact of the matter is they use sharding right now mainly because of "dead" servers (and cross realm BG's, Dungeons and Raids ofc). Servers that very few people play on. So instead of merging them to other servers they use the sharding technology to redistribute everyone accordingly. It's not bad to merge servers, people. It's way worse to use sharding as the tool to do it instead.

It's really not, merging servers completely rips up communities where sharding will not do this because it will only last for a couple of weeks in the starting zones.

Second if you are Blizzard why are you going to waste resources on a bunch of servers you don't need. Not to mention people being ticked that they need to change their name and players dealing with the fact that people that might have recognized them before no longer have a clue who they are.

If sharding is that big of an issue for you in starting zones then just wait a couple of weeks and then start. Stop coming up with convoluted ideas that do exactly the same thing as sharding but worse. Merging servers is not a better solution when you are arguing " my community " because it completely destroys one whole community and modifies another.

[Deventh]

It's really not, merging servers completely rips up communities where sharding will not do this because it will only last for a couple of weeks in the starting zones.

Second if you are Blizzard why are you going to waste resources on a bunch of servers you don't need. Not to mention people being ticked that they need to change their name and players dealing with the fact that people that might have recognized them before no longer have a clue who they are.

If sharding is that big of an issue for you in starting zones then just wait a couple of weeks and then start. Stop coming up with convoluted ideas that do exactly the same thing as sharding but worse. Merging servers is not a better solution when you are arguing " my community " because it completely destroys one whole community and modifies another.

It's not worse lmao. How is it worse to see everyone all the time instead of dividing the community with sharding? It will not split the community because the community will be big on all 3 servers. And when all 3 communities on those 3 servers (who will expect a server merge to begin with because of the naming and I'd assume a post from Blizzard if they did decide to go this route) die down they will get merged and I don't see your "worse" part here when it does happen. How is it bad to merge servers after a few months? It might cost more, of course, but it will make people more happy.

Also it is not confirmed that it will be only in the starting zones, so stop coming up with that argument. If it is only in the 1-10 starting zones, then fine, I can look past that. But I am pretty sure it won't be just there.

[KaPe]

It's not worse lmao. How is it worse to see everyone all the time instead of dividing the community with sharding? It will not split the community because the community will be big on all 3 servers. And when all 3 communities on those 3 servers (who will expect a server merge to begin with because of the naming and I'd assume a post from Blizzard if they did decide to go this route) die down they will get merged and I don't see your "worse" part here when it does happen. How is it bad to merge servers after a few months? It might cost more, of course, but it will make people more happy.

Also it is not confirmed that it will be only in the starting zones, so stop coming up with that argument. If it is only in the 1-10 starting zones, then fine, I can look past that. But I am pretty sure it won't be just there.

You completely "forgot" to mention that those 3 separate communities either have to share a single name pool or force-renaming after merge, which is going to be a massive pita. You have your great community... except leading guilds have to be changed after merge, because their name is a duplicate - whether accidental or not. Maybe you have people mass rolling on server #1, because they expect it to be prioritized during merge.

Or maybe all servers share namespace, so someone steals "your" name and yet you won't even be able to see that person until merge. Or you can't create a guild with that name. Or...

It's only "superior" option if you conveniently ignore all the downsides - or assume they don't apply to you, while everyone else will just have to "deal with it".

[azka]

Paying a subscription to play the game is part of the Classic experience.