Lol! Are you trying to kick us f2p out of the game?


#38

Yah, I know who sets the price. The “special” group of people I alluded to earlier who think the pricing is reasonable.

If and when Blizzard decides to take advantage of the shop and provide standalone cosmetic purchases that are not tied to packs much like what they did previously with Magni and the like, I will totally support the game financially.

Until then, I think you know where I stand.


#39

The light/dark or whatever card backs?

No, they werent region locked as by that time Amazon Prime (Video) was available in ~200 countries, not just 6.


#40

If that was true, wouldn’t we have more than 3 alternate heroes currently for sale? Also, two things to consider:

  1. Preorders, like any other time-limited event, present an additional incentive to purchase the bundle (because if you don’t buy them soon, they’ll be gone for good).
  2. These preorders are a better deal than the standalone heroes, because you get packs at a cheap (relatively speaking) individual rate. $80 for 80 packs is, by itself, a good deal. The alternate hero is 100% a bonus.

#41

I don’t care about cosmetics or preorders: I never have.

I’d just like to be able to make smaller priced purchases to show my support: portraits would be a good way to do that.

But since I’m a POS f2p, I am unworthy to have access to a preordered portrait.

I get it - players that pay are better than me.


#42

“I would buy alternate heroes for $10, but not in a $80 bundle” is a different argument from “Most people would rather buy $10 heroes rather than $80 bundles.” If you had presented the argument as your personal preference from the get-go, I wouldn’t have had a reason to present a counterargument.

Woe is you.


#43

Unpopular opinion, the portrait is effectively free with a very large barrier to entry. $1 per pack is the best normal ratio, which means the portrait is at no additional cost as well as the legendary card.

That being said, I do wish they would separate out cosmetic and pack purchases. It would all add up the same in total, but give players a choice in what they want and a smaller barrier to entry. Though I don’t see many Magni or Aleria, so maybe players wouldn’t by it as much as they say…


#44

They’re not nearly as cool as the later portraits though. I wish they’d at least try it one time just to see, you know?


#45

I can dig it.

I’m also a fan of Aleria, I’d choose her over Mecha-Jaraxus anyday. It’s a little closer with Lazul


#46

Warframe is free…


#47

I mean, they could be if the deck was placed flat on the game board, like how any normal person would place their deck in a card game. The cosmetic doesn’t mean much when you virtually never see it.


#48

Dude if it wasn’t for the whales buying $80 hero portraits, the game would be dying a lot faster than it is.


#49

The ones they do offer for sale seperate of any other purchase (Magni, Medivh, Alleria) have sold so badly that the model was completely abandoned as an option for future portraits.

And it does make sense that most people aren’t going to buy a seperate portrait, for most players the choice between 7 packs or a cosmetic only item is a pick between more ingame options or a cosmetic item only usable with 1/9th of the playable classes.

Only if you have a complete collection for your preferred format does it make sense to drop money for a purely cosmetic item.


#50

Of course they want less F2P players. Why would they care about resource waste, when the whales drop hundreds a year to keep the CEO’s pockets fat.

Welcome to reality.


#51

Does it make sense to spend 20 bucks on a pizza when you could spend 35 cents on ramen?

Most people budget a certain amount for their hobbies/luxuries. Mayne that’s rebuilding a car, maybe that’s eating junk food every day… or maybe it’s gaming.

All in all, you could spend two or three grand a year on gaming and it would still be one of the cheaper habits out there.

If you don’t want to spend money, I’m not going to say you should. But in general, nice things cost money.

Tldr: hearthstone; Hey, it’s cheaper than crack!


#52

Honestly, after the first couple of expansions you can keep up with the new sets pretty easily if you complete quests regularly and buy new sets’ packs with gold saved from the previous expansion.


#53

Look at it this way, if the hero skin costed gold you’d have to choose between the hero skin and packs.


#54

as a priest player, i dislike the fact that the skin hides behind 80$, :confused: , i dont need that bunch of cards, i like the skin more, its priest man.


#57

Totally disagree.
Hero portraits etc should be considered as a more premium exclusive. None needs them to actually play the game.

That said im all in to see functions that make hero portraits etc cost money while at the same time making the rest of the meaningfull gameplay cheaper (for ex more events, more gold, more packs etc).


#58

Altought I hate this scheme of loking skins in ultra mega expensive bundles , in my opinion, the problem with this one is being for priest.

The other priest skin was Tyrande, locked to only 8 countries, and that Blizzard refuses do bring back (they’re "thinking " about this for YEARS!), and now, once again, not everyone will be able to get this.


#59

“Best” is subjective. Sorry you like it a lot, if you want it that bad, buy the bundle. The reason you are F2P is because you don’t care to support or don’t care at all, so I don’t understand the point you’re bringing up.

The portrait is and has been exclusive, just like the past ones. They’re meant to be special.

Of course it’s hard to play a card game like Hearthstone being F2P, that’s just how ti is and how it’s always been with expansions.