Achievements and Rewards Going Away With Midnight Pre-Patch and Expansion Release

[Ereb]

It's always been a bad aspect of the game.

Having incentives to actually play your game is arguable at best, but I wouldn't necc argue that it's bad on it's merits alone. Again you have had months and months and months to achieve anything you wanted during this season, and nobody was surprised about anything regarding what goes away and what doesn't. Like it or not, there is nobody to blame, but yourself if you are feeling "left out" in any sense of the word over these 1/2 year long tiers and not partaking in anything you perceive you should've.

And again it's literally always been like this so complaining in 2026 about it seems pointless at best.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

Having incentives to actually play your game is arguable at best, but I wouldn't necc argue that it's bad on it's merits alone. Again you have had months and months and months to achieve anything you wanted during this season, and nobody was surprised about anything regarding what goes away and what doesn't. Like it or not, there is nobody to blame, but yourself if you are feeling "left out" in any sense of the word over these 1/2 year long tiers and not partaking in anything you perceive you should've.

And again it's literally always been like this so complaining in 2026 about it seems pointless at best.

Personal blame/responsibility is a silly enough concept to apply in real life, but especially to apply to a video game. A video game should be designed to be as enjoyable as possible for all people.

And its not "having incentives to actually play your game", its "having incentives to play it during this particular period of a few months".

"It's always been like this" is a silly statement. Lots of things that have "always been" eventually get changed with enough outcry. That's how progress works.

- - - Updated - - -

Not all of WoW’s rewards work that way. Also, plenty of things in life have limited time things when it comes to rewards and participation. WoW happens to be one of those.

Yeah, and they shouldn't. Lots of things in life suck. And we complain about them until they get fixed and society progresses. That's how its been for millennia. The status quo is cancer.

[Ereb]

Personal blame/responsibility is a silly enough concept to apply in real life, but especially to apply to a video game. A video game should be designed to be as enjoyable as possible for all people.

And its not "having incentives to actually play your game", its "having incentives to play it during this particular period of a few months".

"It's always been like this" is a silly statement. Lots of things that have "always been" eventually get changed with enough outcry. That's how progress works.

Change for the sake of change isn't progress. You've yet to actually say anything meaningful about this topic other than "cuz I don't like it!". 6 months is a very long time for anybody, including yourself, who might be interested in playing the game and receiving its rewards.
You showing up at the 11th hour asking the entire world to bend to you is egotistical at best, and something I'll get banned for saying at worst. Asking you to take some accountability is silly in your eyes you said, so I expect we don't have much to say anymore.

[Eapoe]

Personal blame/responsibility is a silly enough concept to apply in real life, but especially to apply to a video game. A video game should be designed to be as enjoyable as possible for all people.

And its not "having incentives to actually play your game", its "having incentives to play it during this particular period of a few months".

"It's always been like this" is a silly statement. Lots of things that have "always been" eventually get changed with enough outcry. That's how progress works.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, and they shouldn't. Lots of things in life suck. And we complain about them until they get fixed and society progresses. That's how its been for millennia. The status quo is cancer.

No, not everything. People that play in sports don’t get the same championship ring from previous years when they were too young or injured to play when they win the next championship.
If I train and then run a 5-10k, half marathon, full marathon, or whatever, I don’t get the same participation award I got from the previous years. Let alone the same event be held year long, year after year, to let people do the same one all the time.
WoW is the same thing. It has limited time events and rewards. Does it suck because you missed out on them? Yes, but it’s how some things in the world work.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

Change for the sake of change isn't progress. You've yet to actually say anything meaningful about this topic other than "cuz I don't like it!". 6 months is a very long time for anybody, including yourself, who might be interested in playing the game and receiving its rewards.
You showing up at the 11th hour asking the entire world to bend to you is egotistical at best, and something I'll get banned for saying at worst. Asking you to take some accountability is silly in your eyes you said, so I expect we don't have much to say anymore.

I think most people don't like it, and most that do feel that way for toxic reasons. Lording "I have this and you don't" over others.

The whole philosophy of "personal accountability" is flawed and holds society back. Rather than fix problems and try to make things better for everybody, it shifts the blame to the individual. While an individual might be able to improve their own life, the "average" individual will not. Society does not improve this way. In aggregate, people are exactly as responsible as they are - never have and never will change.

- - - Updated - - -

No, not everything. People that play in sports don’t get the same championship ring from previous years when they were too young or injured to play when they win the next championship.
If I train and then run a 5-10k, half marathon, full marathon, or whatever, I don’t get the same participation award I got from the previous years. Let alone the same event be held year long, year after year, to let people do the same one all the time.
WoW is the same thing. It has limited time events and rewards. Does it suck because you missed out on them? Yes, but it’s how some things in the world work.

The sports analogy is more comparable to achievements, which I agree with. Having a badge that says "I won this at this time", "I was here for this event", etc. is fine.

But having awesome cosmetic rewards that designers spent many hours creating, that people may want, permanently locked away from players who happened to not play/raid at that time - is complete BS.

The closer analogy would be if only people who played football during a particular season were able to eat a specific food, or wear specific item of clothing. It's depriving other people of something they want for the sake of a select group of people feeling special.

[Ereb]

I think most people don't like it, and most that do feel that way for toxic reasons.

Citation needed sry

[Elbob]

I think most people don't like it, and most that do feel that way for toxic reasons. Lording "I have this and you don't" over others.
The whole philosophy of "personal accountability" is flawed and holds society back. Rather than fix problems and try to make things better for everybody, it shifts the blame to the individual. While an individual might be able to improve their own life, the "average" individual will not. Society does not improve this way. In aggregate, people are exactly as responsible as they are - never have and never will change.

"Why didn't you kick the X marker?"
"Thats like society's fault not mine..."

but on topic and out of the Philosphy 101 class. The game generates new content/rewards way faster then it removes them. Having tiny amounts of rewards that celebrate you doing something at a certain time and then going away is absolutely fine. As pointed out it does provide incentive to be actively playing but thats kinda what you sign up for with this game. Seasonal content and rewards.

[GUZ]

Well the Kyveza mount skin is probably staying as the other skins have simply become low drop chances. So that isn't FOMO.

Honestly they should just do this type of stuff with the AOTC and the M+ mounts as well. Keep them in the game, but make them rare rewards. The achievements already exist as the participation reward, don't need to lock out people out of cool mounts, just because they didn't play during a specific time.

- - - Updated - - -



Should be almost trivial in Midnight, but you'll probably have to kill her like a hundred times to receive the mount afterwards. Still, that's probably worth it over doing it now if you don't enjoy it.

update took me over 200 tries but i beat it on blood dk almost stroked out

[Eapoe]

I think most people don't like it, and most that do feel that way for toxic reasons. Lording "I have this and you don't" over others.

The whole philosophy of "personal accountability" is flawed and holds society back. Rather than fix problems and try to make things better for everybody, it shifts the blame to the individual. While an individual might be able to improve their own life, the "average" individual will not. Society does not improve this way. In aggregate, people are exactly as responsible as they are - never have and never will change.

- - - Updated - - -



The sports analogy is more comparable to achievements, which I agree with. Having a badge that says "I won this at this time", "I was here for this event", etc. is fine.

But having awesome cosmetic rewards that designers spent many hours creating, that people may want, permanently locked away from players who happened to not play/raid at that time - is complete BS.

The closer analogy would be if only people who played football during a particular season were able to eat a specific food, or wear specific item of clothing. It's depriving other people of something they want for the sake of a select group of people feeling special.

But like I said, those things also exist in life. You even put it with your analogy. Not every season’s rewards are going to be the same.
It’s not exclusive to WoW.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

"Why didn't you kick the X marker?"
"Thats like society's fault not mine..."

but on topic and out of the Philosphy 101 class. The game generates new content/rewards way faster then it removes them. Having tiny amounts of rewards that celebrate you doing something at a certain time and then going away is absolutely fine. As pointed out it does provide incentive to be actively playing but thats kinda what you sign up for with this game. Seasonal content and rewards.

It's not an incentive that's actually in the players interest though. It's more exploitative and takes control away from the consumer. Instead of being able to choose when and how they spend their time playing the game, such incentives encourage people to play at particular times for particular durations. This may be in the interest of the company, but its not in the interest of the consumer.

As for the philosophy point, I think it's wrong-headed and kind of outdated to think in terms of "fault". What should be striven for is to maximize value (happiness, comfort, freedom, etc.) for as many people as possible. It is a primitive and unproductive mentality to say "it's okay that you have this problem because its your fault and you deserve it". All problems should be solved for everyone, ideally. Regardless of deontological notions of "responsibility". Deontology is kind of...ick.

- - - Updated - - -

But like I said, those things also exist in life. You even put it with your analogy. Not every season’s rewards are going to be the same.
It’s not exclusive to WoW.

...Okay? Well no longer.

"It's always been this way" is never a valid excuse to not try and progress. This is the opposite of the march of human civilization.

[Elbob]

It's not an incentive that's actually in the players interest though. It's more exploitative and takes control away from the consumer. Instead of being able to choose when and how they spend their time playing the game, such incentives encourage people to play at particular times for particular durations. This may be in the interest of the company, but its not in the interest of the consumer.

As for the philosophy point, I think it's wrong-headed and kind of outdated to think in terms of "fault". What should be striven for is to maximize value (happiness, comfort, freedom, etc.) for as many people as possible. It is a primitive and unproductive mentality to say "it's okay that you have this problem because its your fault and you deserve it". All problems should be solved for everyone, ideally. Regardless of deontological notions of "responsibility". Deontology is kind of...ick.

- - - Updated - - -



...Okay? Well no longer.

"It's always been this way" is never a valid excuse to not try and progress. This is the opposite of the march of human civilization.

its also a form of entertainment. From a design direction there is also the concept of choice overload which will actually deter people from playing the game. And if blizzard were to leave in all the things people like to suggest like all the weekly events, old raids/dungeons scaling to level, seasonal events, tier based achievements/rewards you are going to lose people to that. So there is no winning here, limit some reward structures and people will be upset they lost an opportunity or leave them all and people will quit because of too many things to do. So yes limiting choice can also be in the interest of the consumer.

Fault exists because we are individuals that make choices in this game. "Fault" isn't going away socially or in game any time soon. If you miss your kick and the grp dies its your fault. Eat it and move on.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

its also a form of entertainment. From a design direction there is also the concept of choice overload which will actually deter people from playing the game. And if blizzard were to leave in all the things people like to suggest like all the weekly events, old raids/dungeons scaling to level, seasonal events, tier based achievements/rewards you are going to lose people to that. So there is no winning here, limit some reward structures and people will be upset they lost an opportunity or leave them all and people will quit because of too many things to do. So yes limiting choice can also be in the interest of the consumer.

Fault exists because we are individuals that make choices in this game. "Fault" isn't going away socially or in game any time soon. If you miss your kick and the grp dies its your fault. Eat it and move on.

Basically, "limit choices of the player so people don't get overwhelmed by choices". This is incredibly unproductive.

Yes, I'm sure there will be people that will quit or not play because they're overwhelmed by options. Sure. But people also quit (quite possibly more) over annoying FOMO-exploitation that makes them get burned out or just annoyed at the game.

Everything has trade offs. You can argue against any progress by pointing to some conceivable downside, there always is one. But it's better to approach these things from basic philisophical values. In this case, more options for the consumer = good.

There are also other, more palatable ways to incentivize people to focus on specific content besides FOMO. Simply enhancing the rewards/drop rates is plenty.

"Fault exists because we are individuals that make choices in this game."

When I miss out on something FOMO, I don't regret my choice. I'm just mad they presented me with only bad choices (A. Play/do content when I don't feel like doing it B. Don't get cool thing I want). Just because you have options does not mean you are free.

[Elbob]

Basically, "limit choices of the player so people don't get overwhelmed by choices". This is incredibly unproductive.

Yes, I'm sure there will be people that will quit or not play because they're overwhelmed by options. Sure. But people also quit (quite possibly more) over annoying FOMO-exploitation that makes them get burned out or just annoyed at the game.

Everything has trade offs. You can argue against any progress by pointing to some conceivable downside, there always is one. But it's better to approach these things from basic philisophical values. In this case, more options for the consumer = good.

There are also other, more palatable ways to incentivize people to focus on specific content besides FOMO. Simply enhancing the rewards/drop rates is plenty.

"Fault exists because we are individuals that make choices in this game."

When I miss out on something FOMO, I don't regret my choice. I'm just mad they presented me with only bad choices (A. Play/do content when I don't feel like doing it B. Don't get cool thing I want). Just because you have options does not mean you are free.

You don't know which is better, Blizzard are the only ones with access to the exit surveys they give when you cancel subs. They have a better grasp on why people quit than you or me. Seeing as they continue to use engagement incentives during the seasonal loops they apparently are the better choice to opening everything perma for everyone. But putting engagement incentives in is what they are supposed to do. They make money to make content and we want content at a reasonable rate.

"basic philosophical values" my guy I just stated and you agreed that "more options for the consumer = good." is not always true. Its legit in post.

You don't know that. Juicing drop rates also comes with downsides. It all has up and down sides thats the point. We want to enjoy the game whats why we pay for it. Blizzard wants us to enjoy the game so we pay for it. Thats the simple answer.

The presented choice is fine, whats silly is looking at it through the negative instead of the positive. Which reward do you want more? The time doing something else or the "limited" reward. Sounds like you need to be more a glass half full kind of person.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

You don't know which is better, Blizzard are the only ones with access to the exit surveys they give when you cancel subs. They have a better grasp on why people quit than you or me. Seeing as they continue to use engagement incentives during the seasonal loops they apparently are the better choice to opening everything perma for everyone. But putting engagement incentives in is what they are supposed to do. They make money to make content and we want content at a reasonable rate.

"basic philosophical values" my guy I just stated and you agreed that "more options for the consumer = good." is not always true. Its legit in post.

You don't know that. Juicing drop rates also comes with downsides. It all has up and down sides thats the point. We want to enjoy the game whats why we pay for it. Blizzard wants us to enjoy the game so we pay for it. Thats the simple answer.

The presented choice is fine, whats silly is looking at it through the negative instead of the positive. Which reward do you want more? The time doing something else or the "limited" reward. Sounds like you need to be more a glass half full kind of person.

It seems to me you're falling for the flawed mindset of "business acts in their self-interest, it's in their self-interest to make good product for consumer, therefore their decisions must be for the best". That's not how it works. For one, it's possible to manipulate/exploit people into giving you more money while simultaneously providing them with a worse experience. For another, the people making decisions are often looking at only short-term gains or are making assumptions because they're money-men who only see the product as a money generator.

As for "Sounds like you need to be more a glass half full kind of person.":

No, I'm a "I want to glass to be as close to full as possible, and will reprimand anyone or anything that holds it back from that". In this case "full" means "100% happiness, everyone gets absolutely everything they want, and no negative experiences ever happen". Obviously unobtainable, at least without extremely futuristic technology - but it's what to aim for.

[Elbob]

It seems to me you're falling for the flawed mindset of "business acts in their self-interest, it's in their self-interest to make good product for consumer, therefore their decisions must be for the best". That's not how it works. For one, it's possible to manipulate/exploit people into giving you more money while simultaneously providing them with a worse experience. For another, the people making decisions are often looking at only short-term gains or are making assumptions because they're money-men who only see the product as a money generator.

As for "Sounds like you need to be more a glass half full kind of person.":

No, I'm a "I want to glass to be as close to full as possible, and will reprimand anyone or anything that holds it back from that". In this case "full" means "100% happiness, everyone gets absolutely everything they want, and no negative experiences ever happen". Obviously unobtainable, at least without extremely futuristic technology - but it's what to aim for.

Of course a company wants to turn the knobs for money saving to increase profits but they dont want to hurt the user/consumer and we are talking about, effectively, 0 cost features(leaving stuff on/available past its usually expiration date). So whats the self interest? You seem to imply the self interest is purely making people unhappy and quit, which makes no sense.

Are you cooked or intentionally dancing away from the glass of water concept? Its not about the fullness its about the expressed opinion being positive or negative of the same object. The glass will never be full, it will always be at 50%.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

Of course a company wants to turn the knobs for money saving to increase profits but they dont want to hurt the user/consumer and we are talking about, effectively, 0 cost features(leaving stuff on/available past its usually expiration date). So whats the self interest? You seem to imply the self interest is purely making people unhappy and quit, which makes no sense.

Are you cooked or intentionally dancing away from the glass of water concept? Its not about the fullness its about the expressed opinion being positive or negative of the same object. The glass will never be full, it will always be at 50%.

They company wants to make as much money for as little effort as possible. So they will make decisions that provide less value to the consumer (FOMO) while encouraging them to pay. It is quite possible for a product to be worse in terms of value provided, but still manipulate the consumer into paying more.

Despite simplified economic philosophies declaring otherwise, how much a consumer is willing to pay is not as simple as "how much value does the product provide them?" because human psychology is more complicated than that. FOMO "works" because it is manipulative, not because it provides more value to the consumer.

As for the glass metaphor, the problem is that this particular glass isn't "always at 50%". The more people like me complain about FOMO, the more pressure exists against it and the less of it there will be.

In some situations "glass half empty" is better for this reason, so that we can fill it up. Reality isn't static and unchanging, we can affect it and improve it. Progress. That's what civilization is about. We don't "accept" and "look on the bright side" when there's something that brings us discomfort, we find solutions to rid ourselves of the discomfort.

[Elbob]

They company wants to make as much money for as little effort as possible. So they will make decisions that provide less value to the consumer (FOMO) while encouraging them to pay. It is quite possible for a product to be worse in terms of value provided, but still manipulate the consumer into paying more.

Despite simplified economic philosophies declaring otherwise, how much a consumer is willing to pay is not as simple as "how much value does the product provide them?" because human psychology is more complicated than that. FOMO "works" because it is manipulative, not because it provides more value to the consumer.

As for the glass metaphor, the problem is that this particular glass isn't "always at 50%". The more people like me complain about FOMO, the more pressure exists against it and the less of it there will be.

In some situations "glass half empty" is better for this reason, so that we can fill it up. Reality isn't static and unchanging, we can affect it and improve it. Progress. That's what civilization is about. We don't "accept" and "look on the bright side" when there's something that brings us discomfort, we find solutions to rid ourselves of the discomfort.

You are going in circles, I'm asking "what effort?" when we are talking about leaving systems on. They legit just added an insane value, evergreen system to the game that they had no obligation to do so. So they clearly aren't just trying to maximize profit vs effort. But you are claiming as little effort as possible for minimal consumer value... hmmmm.

Crying FOMO is tiring because its been reduced to apply all the time. WoW is a MMO with constant updates. Not being able to experience the new patch along with people is also FOMO. Should they not update the game? Obviously not, thats silly. (Most of) the content in this game is better with groups/friends by funneling players into content together, instead of having them spread out and be forced into ever smaller/rarer grps or even alone, also adds value. Turning off systems helps cause this funnel to newer content populated.

You are right that providing opportunities that people want to take part in/advantage of is often done on purpose but thats every day around you created socially. I've never seen some one mad that a sale on Chicken Soup has a duration but thats a FOMO system. Are you also mad the Steam Winter sale ends? Cause thats FOMO too, but everyone loves it. Do you hate Taylor Swift for ending her Eras tour?(thank the wife for this example lol). We are human, we want that dopamine. FOMO can make it hit harder which is what we want from entertainment. We want new and exciting, we like getting that new toy having that new experience. Almost all forms entertainment prey on that feeling because, yes thats how they make money, thats what we like.

All you come across to me is some one that is mad/upset about a system not catering to them so you want everyone else to be mad with you. Spreading negativity is just as bad for society as FOMO boosting engagement systems for entertainment. And honestly negative people are just more annoying.

[EntertainmentNihilist]

You are going in circles, I'm asking "what effort?" when we are talking about leaving systems on. They legit just added an insane value, evergreen system to the game that they had no obligation to do so. So they clearly aren't just trying to maximize profit vs effort. But you are claiming as little effort as possible for minimal consumer value... hmmmm.

Crying FOMO is tiring because its been reduced to apply all the time. WoW is a MMO with constant updates. Not being able to experience the new patch along with people is also FOMO. Should they not update the game? Obviously not, thats silly. (Most of) the content in this game is better with groups/friends by funneling players into content together, instead of having them spread out and be forced into ever smaller/rarer grps or even alone, also adds value. Turning off systems helps cause this funnel to newer content populated.

You are right that providing opportunities that people want to take part in/advantage of is often done on purpose but thats every day around you created socially. I've never seen some one mad that a sale on Chicken Soup has a duration but thats a FOMO system. Are you also mad the Steam Winter sale ends? Cause thats FOMO too, but everyone loves it. Do you hate Taylor Swift for ending her Eras tour?(thank the wife for this example lol). We are human, we want that dopamine. FOMO can make it hit harder which is what we want from entertainment. We want new and exciting, we like getting that new toy having that new experience. Almost all forms entertainment prey on that feeling because, yes thats how they make money, thats what we like.

All you come across to me is some one that is mad/upset about a system not catering to them so you want everyone else to be mad with you. Spreading negativity is just as bad for society as FOMO boosting engagement systems for entertainment. And honestly negative people are just more annoying.

IMO its likely the people making FOMO decisions are the money-pigs, not the actual artists/designers. Real creators often don't want to simply get money for as little effort as possible. But they're forced to obey a network of managers, shareholders, etc. who are monsters who merely want to see "money number go up".

You're doing a kind of weird reduction of the idea of being "Anti-FOMO" to include things that I'm clearly not talking about. The point is rewards being made unobtainable. Not simply things getting a boost/discount, or social stuff which obviously does not count because you'd have to force other people into an interaction to make it not limited-time.

Hell, I'm cool with the whole "Mythic mounts become 1% drop chance after the expansion" for the most part. Though I'd probably do like 2% or 3% personally.

Negativity is usually bad, but not if the negativity is complaining about a problem so that problem gets fixed.