After you’ve posted the 500 Whizbang games you lost without making it to Diamond. Maybe we can help you. 
Uhm, I am the only one who explained anything - to you guys.
Here’s an in detail explanation of why it won’t hurt financially:
No arguments came up against that. Feel free to participate.
If you don’t care about Whizbang and don’t play it all, feel free not to take part in this thread.
troll post everyone, move along
lets stop feeding it
Extremely RNG card is extremely RNG.
It’s a slightly incorrect to say to the OP “it does not make sense financially”. The accurate thing to say is “blizzard executives THINK it does not make sense financially”. I personally believe things like that may help the game long term because short term profiteering may eventually drive away players; I’ve been seeing blizzard doing that mistake for many years; e.g. in WoW and in HS they seem to yo-yo people between OP and nerfed classes or cards because they probably think it’s “exciting to the players” and it can’t be by mistake because most of the time it’s way too obvious (e.g. keeping the badlands Reno unnerfed for a year); but that obviously drives people away in the long term because they see a worse designed game even if they see that only subconsciously.
They never said that. They just reworked a few Whizbang decks based on players feedback a couple of months ago. It’s just 2-3 people in this thread claiming this from their very imagination.
It indeed does, that’s why Blizzard is also offering starter decks and decks for rent for new players or returning players. It doesn’t prevent them from buying new cards afterwards.
Again, the idea that this would lead to Blizzards bankruptcy is a claim entirely made up by a few users. Some people just don’t like things and then they attempt to talk it down for no reason.
everyone but you *
lol
Yes they never announce their financial plans anyway, but the plans are often indirectly confirmed clearly since that’s what they decided to do anyway.
You seem to imply when they decide something it’s definitely the right decision but I think they often sacrifice the long term for the short term profit.
See i agree with you on that but that’s another can of worms at this point, at the end of the day what most companies want is is a line going up every 4 months and how they get there doesn’t matter to them, this one in particular being a good example.
Like i don’t see anything show that they care about the future game or have long term plans, it’s all just trying to maximize short term profits
And if they look at only 4 months it’s a very bad decision. These are games with the potential to last for DECADES at this point; many oldtimers still remember the processors doubling in speed every year but that is not longer the case since it’s exceptionally hard to shrink the transistor for at least the past 10 years; as a result games that are more than 10 years old are easily still valid (and mobile devices are not getting much faster either (they often make the requirements even worse since they use migration of games from the PC)).
Artists and “simple” game designers used to say “make the game good and the profits will follow”; at the end of the day that’s all you need; you may risk releasing World of Warcraft when it was financially “foolish” to have dozens of zones and dungeons and alternative playpaths for a game with 0 players before release but that “financial foolishness” is exactly what brought the billions.
That`s moore’s law i believe, that gaming industry is long gone sadly and now it lives on the form of indie games.
Big companies like Blizzard or Riot are backed by giants like Tencent or Microsoft and on that point the people that were passionate about making good products are long since gone and replaced by people in charge of maximizing profits, if you are familiar with the story of wow then you know all about it
Moore’s law no longer works in its original definition for more than a decade and I’m being VERY generous. They started abusing the definition even with the first dual core processor since the original definition was referring to a single processor without multiple cores.
It’s easily 10 years at this point that the fastest PC CPU you get is not going to wow you compared to the 10y old fastest CPU; GPUs use some kind of “hack” in this context in most cases; they add “moar coars” for the most part which is why they now burn a billion KW.
Part of the reason i haven’t bought a new gpu, the 1000`s series from nvidia was so good that all of their next products feel like a ripoff in comparison.
It’s generally very slow to see anything impressive unless it has been at least 5 years and for most people it must be at least 10 years. GPUs for the same POWER DRAW are similar to CPUs; they advance algorithmically but slowly; most of the time you just have a larger power bill to be “faster” because multicore is an immediate speed boost for GPUs unlike CPUs.
It`s not even the performance that bothers me so much but the price to performance that disappoints me, but it’s what you get when a company controls around 80% of the market, the days of matching a current console for relatively cheap are gone as far as i know