Cataclysm Classic goes against the original intended reason for Classic

[Zyky]

They're eventually going to have to put in LFG anyway, some servers don't have any heroic groups going at all right now.

[sztivo94]

I don't get why the hate on Cata. Man, I like the new world, it's something fresh and nicer zones. Also I liked the revamped quests and that we had to lvl in Azeroth once again.

People wanted Classic yeah, the old game and the old experience, but it's not the same before. Meta kills it, the playerbase is older now with family/jobs.

And IDC about "messing" up the old world, I liked it, and BTW, what you miss about it, when you spend your time in Outland/Norhtrend? You sometimes go to train there and that's it. The feeling and the atmosphere has gone when TBCC launched. Man, when I didn't want to lvl in Outland, because it was full of peeps, I lvled an alt, and the world was dead. Peeps started to rush for content and to lvl 70, nothing mattered. The atmosphere was dead.

So yeah, what you mean by Classic is DoA, and those who wanted Vanilla realms to stay, it's just 30k people around the world. I guess the same will happen, IF Blizz keeps separate WotLK realms and Cata Classic too. Who wants to farm Naxx, ICC forever?

[crewskater]

You're still completely missing the point. There is no way to correlate subscriber levels with expansion quality because people are leaving and coming back for all sorts of nebulous, completely indefinable reasons. Looking at the subscriber chart and saying "THIS is when subscribers went down and THIS must be when WoW started to suck" is absolutely pointless since -- as I mentioned in another post -- there are two sides to the subscription equation and when you focus only on losses you're not getting the full picture. Retention rates for a subscription model can remain similar from quarter to quarter while still showing overall losses in the total number of subscribers because the number of new customers being generated decreases. There is also a phenomena known as market saturation which is when a subscription service reaches its maximum number of potential customers. (Considering we had 8 straight quarters of 12M subscribers in WotLK, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that the game had reached market saturation.) Once at market saturation the only direction subscriptions can possibly go is down because there simply aren't enough new players to stave off the old ones quitting.

Mind you, none of this is a defense of the quality of Cataclysm. I'm just criticizing your extremely myopic, fairly uninformed take about how subscription models work and how you're using incomplete data to support an indefensible position.

The numbers speak for themselves. The fact that we have this thread is further proof since we didn't have one for Vanilla or TBC.

[Relapses]

The numbers speak for themselves.

...they don't speak for themselves, that's literally the point I was making with that post. Without knowing how many new subscribers were generated or how many actual subscribers WoW lost in any given quarter any narrative given to the trending of these numbers is completely meaningless.

The fact that we have this thread is further proof since we didn't have one for Vanilla or TBC.

Cataclysm is a more controversial expansion than anything before it but I don't think it was nearly the abject failure that most players on this forum love to imply (mostly by using the aforementioned useless subscriber graph). For the record, I don't know if Cataclysm is the best direction forward for a certain sub-section of the WoW Classic playerbase but I do think there's another sub-section of that same playerbase that would welcome it with open arms. Whether Blizzard decides to approach it with a "why not both?" angle by releasing SoM-style WotLK servers on top of progression Cataclsym servers or if they decide to stop Classic at WotLK then start over with Vanilla progression servers is anybody's guess.

Regardless, it's pretty arrogant to assume they wouldn't even consider Cataclysm because "that's when subs went down," since there's a lot more to the discussion than just assigning a narrative to numbers on a graph without any context or understanding of what those numbers actually mean.

[Shigma]

how could anyone say this unironicaly?i mean sure,an argument could be made for a few,but in most cases the changed ones were way better for multiple reasons,layout,design,graphics,story flow,quest structure

for example,how is old tanaris better than new one? or silverpine,hillsbrand,i have a ton of nostalgia for old hillsbrand,but i know for a fact the revamp changed it for the far better

To me the problem always was everything is too "deathwing" which feels terrible after cata. Also, even if zones are somewhat more consistent, they also feel... dumber. I don't know, i never liked the revamp at all.

[Hctaz]

The expansions are all similar in that you always stay in the same areas. Vanilla is unique in that you use the whole bloody world. I love that, and I want more of that. It's the true MMORPG experience of WoW imo.

And in the future, instead of adding new continents or areas away from EK and Kalimdor, just add interesting new storylines and quests in the old world. There's no need for us to go space travelling or discover places away from the old world.

I both agree and disagree to some extent.

What I agree with is how much I enjoy the entire world being used for the Vanilla experience. The power gain from leveling up and getting new gear isn't nearly as dramatic as it was in later expansions as well, so it makes the world still feel meaningful.

Plus there are tons of materials that are useful for max level players that can drop off a WIDE level variety of mobs.

I also agree that the expansions essentially invalidating the old content is a bad decision.


What I don't agree with, however, is the idea that there should be no new continents or worlds introduced. I think you can do it in a way that doesn't invalidate the old world. The way that they handled the expansions in the past was with the idea of, "How do we get people to actually want to buy this new product moving forward instead of just sticking with the base game."

I do think you can introduce new places like Outland or Northrend to the game without making the original world pointless. You would need to develop it a little differently, but it can be done.

[deenman]

To me the problem always was everything is too "deathwing" which feels terrible after cata. Also, even if zones are somewhat more consistent, they also feel... dumber. I don't know, i never liked the revamp at all.

yeah i agree on the deathwing feel for some,but thats not all,desolace isnt,and honestly many could use a neww revamp or just progression,i mean the zones are still affected by a cataclysm that is over,or how westfall is stll burning from defias attack

[Konteil]

my only sincere hope is that if they move to do cata they leave wrath alone. let there be a wrath server like there was for classic. i have no intention of playing retail anymore and i didn't like anything after wrath. wrath was the last xpac i played that was genuinely fun. im perfectly fine to keep my toons there and play it forever. i already didn't buy DF which is the first xpac i haven't preordered in 17 years. i have no intention of loggin into retail for any reason. let us keep wrath servers. for me when wrath is gone so is my sub.

[vian]

Considering Wotlk completely killed me and my guilds will to play, and cata revived it

I know more people who quit due to Wotlk than those who quit due to Cata.

I'd say you're wrong.

[davesurfer]

Considering Wotlk completely killed me and my guilds will to play, and cata revived it

I know more people who quit due to Wotlk than those who quit due to Cata.

I'd say you're wrong.

While that might be your experience, it doesn’t mean it is true in aggregate. Don’t be so quick to call someone wrong when the numbers would indicate you could be wrong

[threads]

if they could add the 80-85 zones but leave the old world as vanilla then idc if they do cata. world pre-revamp is why i wanted to play classic.

[Celarent]

how could anyone say this unironicaly?i mean sure,an argument could be made for a few,but in most cases the changed ones were way better for multiple reasons,layout,design,graphics,story flow,quest structure

for example,how is old tanaris better than new one? or silverpine,hillsbrand,i have a ton of nostalgia for old hillsbrand,but i know for a fact the revamp changed it for the far better

I think it's more that Cata's improvements weren't decisive enough, and a lot of people prefer the original design.

I cheered on Tom Chilton's "red, yellow, green" strategy for assessing zone questing structure, and couldn't wait to see what the people who brought me Wrath could do for 6-year-old content.

For me (and I assume a lot of people), not only did the execution not measure up -- quality matters -- but Cata design went much further with a philosophy on single-thread storytelling which I ended up disliking. I really liked the vignettes and subplots; the variety and depth. In the end, efficiency mattered so much less than experience.

[iNUKE]

I think classic should go up to pandaria then reset back to vanilla
anything after pandaria is fake and artificial wow imo
otherwise it will take YEARS before anyone can play tbc again for example
but something tells me blizzard will keep going into wod and legion.. not sure if shadowlands will be called classic in 2 or 3 years but i dont think so.

[Relapses]

I agree - I would love to just have an endlessly open wrath server where I could gear up a bunch of different toons and raid ICC. Just a fun game.

This was the same thing people said about Vanilla. Blizzard released Classic Era servers for this exact reason. Servers that were immediately DOA.

[Woobels]

I wonder what Blizzard's plans for classic are if they even have any. WotLK classic in it's entirety will last a couple years but do they just give up on this sort of release then? It's an incredible tool for them to fill holes in their release schedule. Do they go with Cataclysm and release fresh classic to WotLK servers after? It's interesting imo.

[ifrah]

Why would they stop at WotLK? You might not like, and neither may not the person behind, but that's hardly concrete enough evidence to convince those corporate managers to pull the plug on the "program." Yes, WotLK was the peak of WoW in terms of subscriptions (debates have been whether the figures are 100% comparable throughout the era when they released them), but was Cataclysm a commercial failure? Hardly. Feel free to quote me later for being wrong, but I see absolutely zero reason for them not to proceed that way. Eventually, be it Cataclysm or whatever Shadowlands Classic, they will run out of steam, but expect the release train to keep on churning until then.

[pinkspring]

Introducing classic cata would be the dumbest thing they could do. Cataclysm is when WoW died. If Blizzard is smart, they will continue on a new path instead.

[MasterHamster]

Don't worry, Classic won't go past WotLK, there's no demand for Classic Cata and beyond

[Thundering]

they are making hc+ for classic wotlk it is basically not classic anymore at all.

[Facefive]

Blizzard will milk the cow as long as it gives milk. Quote me on this if you like.
They have pretty much zero effort and make money anyways. Keep the train rolling until all passengers get off.