WoW is a subscription game - why employ scummy F2P tactics?

[Deianeira]

They aren't that company anymore though. The people are gone. The company is now a completely different entity: a publicly traded multi-billion dollar a year video game publisher. They use the Blizzard name because it has value. If one day it's more valuable to use a different name they will. Until then, they use it as there is still value to that brand. They aren't going to rebrand themselves because you don't like it.

Not only that but im pretty sure that those persons that "made the company" are gone now or atleast most of them and im PRETTY darn sure they got a big chunk of money when they left. Especially those that actually was owners/founders and had a stake in the company of old.

- - - Updated - - -

That 'company of geeks' sold themselves in 1994. You might want to brush up on your Blizzard history before you continue squealing about history and the 'original team'

Yes actually i saw an interview witht hose "geeks" and they said that Blizzard of today is a whole different beast. If they wanted to continue to do stuff the way they wanted then they shouldnt have sold their stocks in the company. But i guess they wanted to cash out their work and live the good life.

[jellmoo]

No, I could equally make the argument that your disagreement to me is akin to saying you think Blizzard can do whatever they want without reprocussions or critisism. I made it quite clear, If you want to make a game sub fee based, dont then ask for more money, especially when the sub fee is $15.

Im not looking at it like that at all, look, Jellmoo I know far more than most when it comes to understanding the mentality behind these companies and their motivations for never ending increasing profits, im not thick, I just hate it.

Im not looking at it as

Im looking at it as, I dont give a fuck about your extra profits, you crossed a line. You're already asking for $200 a year and now you want more, and I wont accept any increased cost arguments or anything similar. People fucking forget, most games cost the same $49/59 and have no sub fee, and do great, or have micro transactions instead of a sub fee, Blizzard wants the whole fucking lot, game cost, sub fee AND microtransactions and I DONT AGREE ITS RIGHT.

Here's the thing: Blizzard can do whatever they want and you are free to complain and criticize. They have the ability to package and sell their game and services in the manner they see fit but are confined by the limitations of what people are willing to pay. If they increase prices, or introduce MTX that crosses the line for what people are willing to tolerate, they will deal with the ramifications of losing players. That's their limiting factor. You are free to not like their methodology and complain about it as much as you like.

You don't give a fuck about their profits, and that's fine. But they most certainly do. And that's the reality. If you have a CEO that takes charge and says "MTX in a subscription game is wrong! We're stopping the practice!" you may hear applause from the playerbase, but the board of directors is simply going to ask how he plans to make up for that lost revenue. If he doesn't have a plan for that?

You're going to be seeing a brand spanking new CEO pretty soon.

It's absolutely fine to be upset about their business practice from a moral standpoint. It's fine to draw a line in the sand on the issue. But if you expect a publicly traded company not to act like a publicly traded company and seek the most profit they can, then I think you have to understand that you're being a little naive. World of Warcraft is an enigma in this industry. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't follow the rules that the rest of the industry lives by. It caused an entire genre of gaming to explode and then contract to practically nothing. It continues to be profitable even after more notable and seemingly more lucrative properties either shifted to free to play or died outright. At 15 years of age, the game defies logic. But it still has a loyal fan following. And if you run with the assumption that it has to remain at profit level X to be considered a viable investment to continue being worked on, do you honestly think that players would choose a subscription fee increase (remember this is regardless of whether you think the sub is warranted) or a cash shop of optional QoL services and cosmetic items?

[rhorle]

What so 1% is fine. What about 2%, or 5%, or 10%, 90% is still a large percentage. Its the concept Rhorle, I dont care if its 1%, or .5%. We pay $15 a month plus expansion fees and we still dont get everything, and they are only going to take more and more away.

But they haven't taken anything away in order to have items in the cash shop. $15 a month has never gotten you everything there is in WoW. You are ignoring the facts of the game simply because it doesn't fit your argument and narrow scope of what you personally believe game design should be.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s not about each game offering the potential for as many hours as WoW potentially could, it’s about the subscription models of each and the services as a whole and those both blow WoW out of the water and are 33% cheaper.

But if you are getting only one or two games that are worth it and a bunch of trash then the subscription model does not blow WoW out of the water. It is cheaper because it ultimately offers less. The game passes are also designed to keep you with in the ecosystem. This isn't to say that WoW could lower their price or add more value to it. But comparing the two is apples and oranges.

[cparle87]

Blizzard was founded as a company of geeks making games for other geeks. If they can't stick to their original vision and put games first and money second, they should drop the name and call themselves Cash Grab the Company. What they're doing right now is completely fucking disrespectful to the original team that created the Warcraft IP.

I could somewhat understand if you used this argument in regards to a limited time store item, but not in this case. Even if there are telling us "Resub now and do these achievements before they're gone, that's fine. How is that different than the anniversary or seasonal holiday rewards?

As for the rest, it's sadly sentimental bias. If they don't do what you want they've lost their vision and they're scummy and disrespectful and shuld change their name? I'm sorry you can't separate getting what you want from having a good game.

[jellmoo]

I've seen the PS Now service listed as being a better value, and I'm not going to argue for or against that. What I will suggest is that if we look at the Playstation model as a whole, it's not exactly amazing.

• You have your initial investment of a Playstation 4
• If you want to play online, you need to subscrine to Playstation Plus
  
  • Cool, I can download or stream all sorts of games with this, right?

• Well, you can get 2 free games per month
  
  • Oh, so it isn't access to a huge library?

• Nah, if you want access to a large library of games, you can subscribe to Playstation Now, a separate subscription service
  
  • So I need one subscription to play online, and another to play from their games catalog?

• Yeah.
  
  • Alright... At least I get all the DLC for the games I download though, right?

• Actually, you have to buy the DLC for the PC Now Games separately
  
  • But at least I'll have access to exclusive games, or play games first, right?

• Er... The newest games available are like, 1 year old. One of the big games they like to highlight, GTA V is almost 5 years old

I mean, this is all very tongue in cheek, but the point is that these are models that the gaming industry are moving towards. Hardware companies like Sony want to own your patronage. When it comes time to unveil the PS5, they want it to be a no brainer decision for every PS4 player to migrate to the new console because that's where the content and services they're familiar with are.

Sony is getting people to buy hardware, 2 subscriptions, individual games and DLC all within one platform ecosystem. The days of owning a console and cartridges are long past.

[Mojo03]

But they haven't taken anything away in order to have items in the cash shop. $15 a month has never gotten you everything there is in WoW. You are ignoring the facts of the game simply because it doesn't fit your argument and narrow scope of what you personally believe game design should be.

- - - Updated - - -



But if you are getting only one or two games that are worth it and a bunch of trash then the subscription model does not blow WoW out of the water. It is cheaper because it ultimately offers less. The game passes are also designed to keep you with in the ecosystem. This isn't to say that WoW could lower their price or add more value to it. But comparing the two is apples and oranges.

Okay so if you are only interested in two games, how is it not worth $10, compared to access to one game WoW for $15? How is that getting less? Not to mention the service still offers a hundred other options, MANY of which are AAA, well rated games. How is that still less value than access to WoW? Explain it to me.

[rhorle]

Okay so if you are only interested in two games, how is it not worth $10, compared to access to one game WoW for $15? How is that getting less? Not to mention the service still offers a hundred other options, MANY of which are AAA, well rated games. How is that still less value than access to WoW? Explain it to me.

So 1 or 2 games for $10 is not worth all that you could do in a month of WoW? The problem is you are rating WoW value low versus a single player games. You keep mentioning "offering hundred other options" when that is just a perception of value. Those games are low value. Age of empires 2? WoW. A game from 1999 makes it so worth even paying $10 a month to play.

These low subscription game passes are also not sustainable for developers. How does a developer make any money? I would be surprised if they are not operated at a loss. And the money is made by keeping players in the Xbox or PS ecosystem. And from subscribe and forget auto payments.

[Nzx]

I don’t blame them. If I had idiots like you as my demographic I’d charge it too.

If by "idiots" you mean "people who are gainfully employed", sure. I'm sorry that people buying cosmetic items that you can't afford in a video game makes you so angry.

No matter what form of entertainment you're interested in, there's going to be a "spend more money, get x perk" option. Concert tickets? Meet and greets. Sport event? Box tickets. It's a fact of life, and if it means that we get more content (or any content, realistically) then I'm all for it.

[Pony Soldier]

Because they know their mindless fans will suck that shit up. They take advantage of them and the people love it. Any person capable of thinking and actually values their money will say that the in-game store is overpriced crap. Especially in a game where you already spent money to get the game/expansion and the subscription on top of that. It's really irritating seeing this kind of business continuously being supported by people who mindlessly piss their money away.

Whatever makes people happy I guess. Too bad it has to come at the expense of others.

[Twoddle]

Agreed, it's total BS.

After classic they decided to take the direction of aiming everything at growing kids which is fine just don't ask me to play it or return to retail ever again.

[Rendark]

They do it because they can. People will pay for it and make them a lot of money for doing nothing.

[Sangfoudre]

Sure I don't, but if I wanna stay competitive with mounts....Your prolly just some 14k achieve point casual player, so you play the game differently compared to me.

"Competitive with mounts", I loled way too hard, then I realized you might be serious.

[Djuntas]

"Competitive with mounts", I loled way too hard, then I realized you might be serious.

...Again, read the last few words in my sentence. Some like Pepsi, some like coke...what do I know. Mounts is also something people grind for...You clearly dont give a fuck about collections in games so go back to your shooter

[Sangfoudre]

...Again, read the last few words in my sentence. Some like Pepsi, some like coke...what do I know. Mounts is also something people grind for...You clearly dont give a fuck about collections in games so go back to your shooter

So grind it bruh, IDC if you want to spend 2 tokens on a horse.

[Relapses]

...Again, read the last few words in my sentence. Some like Pepsi, some like coke...what do I know. Mounts is also something people grind for...You clearly dont give a fuck about collections in games so go back to your shooter

Ah right, because REAL Warcraft fans have to buy/grind every mount ever made by Blizzard?

[Djuntas]

Ah right, because REAL Warcraft fans have to buy/grind every mount ever made by Blizzard?

....Your a casual player at the very least compared to somebody who grinds a lot in a game. And thats fine, you can be a fan, but some people like most of the games content.

And yes I know my type of player is not a majority, prolly mythic raiders are more common. In WOD (last time a proper website exsisted for it, dont like the current once on the net) if you had just was it..20k, or 25k nerd points you we're in top 50.000 in the world. So I imagine its the same thing again where only 50-100k players in wow properly grinds in this game.

[Big Thanks]

Even their new Alpaca & plushy pet sale for charity is dubious...

First they say 100% of the sales go to the charities...BUT at the end says if the sales surpass 3 million dollars, Blizzard will get the rest of the money.
Like...what the hell? Why?

That is so...doubtful.

[rhorle]

Even their new Alpaca & plushy pet sale for charity is dubious... First they say 100% of the sales go to the charities...BUT at the end says if the sales surpass 3 million dollars, Blizzard will get the rest of the money. Like...what the hell? Why? That is so...doubtful.

What is dubious about that? 100% of sales are going to the charity until a certain requirement. In the past it was just a date. Now it includes a monetary amount. Big deal. It is still a lot of money that a charity will have when they otherwise wouldn't.

[Big Thanks]

What is dubious about that? 100% of sales are going to the charity until a certain requirement. In the past it was just a date. Now it includes a monetary amount. Big deal. It is still a lot of money that a charity will have when they otherwise wouldn't.

But why?
I dont understand........why make "business" out of something that is supposed to be a selfless act of kindness?
Why not 100% of the sales go to charity?

[rhorle]

But why? I dont understand........why make "business" out of something that is supposed to be a selfless act of kindness?
Why not 100% of the sales go to charity?

The same reason why you are trashing them for something that is supposed to be a selfless act of kindness. Because they can. Very few fundraisers are open ended for all of eternity. It could be something that is imposed by the charity itself. I know my local store has several donation drives and they work for the charity for duration and times instead of just having it year round.