$15 a month for a 14 year old game?

11/02/2018 03:27 PMPosted by Yazfizbash
Is this real?

I'm not paying $180 a year for ANY game,let alone a almost 15 year old game that doesn't get content updates.

I'm puzzled.

Do you consider content updates a positive thing? Something you want for Classic--even though they would immediately make it no longer Classic?

If you don't want them, then their absence is something that makes the game worth more than it would be with them. By definition.

"We pay for content updates" is an attitude that should be left to those who play Battle for Azeroth, or at least those who only play morepigs that do have content updates.
11/03/2018 11:34 AMPosted by Narya
morepigs


You leave morepigs out of this.
11/03/2018 08:23 AMPosted by Thundertotem
11/03/2018 08:21 AMPosted by Thermiss
All of the toxicity, all of the hatred, all of the betrayal.
Drama much?


I know, it's like I'm in crazyland. Some people are taking things way to seriously.
11/02/2018 03:30 PMPosted by Thathotgirl
And how many hours of entertainment do you get out of those $50 games? 5 years worth?

If you have trouble affording it, then farm WoW tokens on retail. This isn't something they'll budge on.


Bliz actually prefers you using a wow token, that's $20 they got instead of $15. Regardless if you paid or someone else.
You think they are going run servers for free ? Come on now . It would be nice but that’s not realistic
11/03/2018 09:34 AMPosted by Thermiss
No, you've just been hardcore trolling the classic forum for days and then you accuse someone who is only here in the classic forum because they are a classic fan, of trolling.
Not agreeing with your point of view =/= trolling. BTW, I thought you was out of here?
11/03/2018 10:56 AMPosted by Poohpydog
11/03/2018 06:39 AMPosted by Koushi
...

I won't if it's $30.


What about 15? Which is the price they have stated. (American ofc)


Wait and see if it's worth paying $15, or even spending the time on. Of course, it's $0 extra to a live subber, so they get to be snarky. Sure, I can afford $180/yr, but if the game turns out to be something I only have a mild interest in playing casually and logging in once a week, I can just as easily do without and spend $180 on something else. I've done fine without WoW this long. Just because I can afford something doesn't mean I should be throwing $200 at things I don't use frivolously at every opportunity I get.

The point is you can't just throw around "well some people said they'd pay $30" as an attack on anyone. I'm not really seeing a product I'd pay $15 for, nor the community I was expecting. Free with live means a very large population of people who will just see Classic as their second home. $15 means only the people that think Classic is the holy grail of gaming will pay for a 14 year old game.
I'm gonna pay for and play both versions. Both are great in their own ways. Can't wait.
1 Like
11/02/2018 04:39 PMPosted by Blacknuggit
I agree with OP. $15/Mo. is steep for a 15 year old game with no continuing content updates or weekly changes/fixes. Wasn't that why we paid $15 a month for retail (even back then)? If they can keep the servers up for their other games without a monthly cost to their consumers, why not classic? In my humble opinion, I would have liked to see an outright payment for the game and be done with costs.

Unfortunately, I'm going to pass on classic :/ so bummed.. to everyone else who is going to play anyway, I'm envious (just a little ;)) ENJOY!
Maybe they will go back to long server downtime for the fixes like in Vanilla, then you really can complain. And BTW the WoW players carry the community since it's the only game that is worth charging the subs. I knew the romance with Vanilla would be short-lived and people would make it fail. This is a Demo, not the actual game, just to give a tease to some of the original content. Wow, some people will NEVER be happy with anything.
11/03/2018 12:39 PMPosted by Colkilla
11/02/2018 03:30 PMPosted by Thathotgirl
And how many hours of entertainment do you get out of those $50 games? 5 years worth?

If you have trouble affording it, then farm WoW tokens on retail. This isn't something they'll budge on.


Bliz actually prefers you using a wow token, that's $20 they got instead of $15. Regardless if you paid or someone else.


This is the reason I'm surprised they didn't add a $5 paywall to Classic. They already wanted 4/3 subs for tokens, I figured they'd try to get 4/3 subs for Classic. I think the WoW team is remaking Classic and exposing live players from it to see if they can find something that appeals to live players and keep them loyal. A number of expansions were marketed as returning to basics in one way or another. I think they're desperate to find the magic formula again do they can create new content going forward.
11/02/2018 03:29 PMPosted by Joynal
I wouldn't have any problem paying $15 a month for Classic.

I refuse to pay $15 a month for the current retail game and since I have to pay for the current retail game in order to play Classic, I won't be playing Classic.


This is the dumbest thing I have ever read, I think i lost brain cells just reading it..
11/03/2018 02:56 PMPosted by Moccoo
11/02/2018 03:29 PMPosted by Joynal
I wouldn't have any problem paying $15 a month for Classic.

I refuse to pay $15 a month for the current retail game and since I have to pay for the current retail game in order to play Classic, I won't be playing Classic.


This is the dumbest thing I have ever read, I think i lost brain cells just reading it..


His comment isn't dumb in any way. Because you're a retail player who gets access for free to a separate game you think it's dumb? Ahaha, you guys are too much.

You sweet summer children.
11/03/2018 02:56 PMPosted by Moccoo
11/02/2018 03:29 PMPosted by Joynal
I wouldn't have any problem paying $15 a month for Classic.

I refuse to pay $15 a month for the current retail game and since I have to pay for the current retail game in order to play Classic, I won't be playing Classic.


This is the dumbest thing I have ever read, I think i lost brain cells just reading it..


Quitters are very bitter over what Blizz turned WoW into unlike subbers. They quit to vote with their wallet. They want their sub to be a vote with their wallet.
11/03/2018 02:52 PMPosted by Koushi
11/03/2018 10:56 AMPosted by Poohpydog
...

What about 15? Which is the price they have stated. (American ofc)


Wait and see if it's worth paying $15, or even spending the time on. Of course, it's $0 extra to a live subber, so they get to be snarky. Sure, I can afford $180/yr, but if the game turns out to be something I only have a mild interest in playing casually and logging in once a week, I can just as easily do without and spend $180 on something else. I've done fine without WoW this long. Just because I can afford something doesn't mean I should be throwing $200 at things I don't use frivolously at every opportunity I get.

The point is you can't just throw around "well some people said they'd pay $30" as an attack on anyone. I'm not really seeing a product I'd pay $15 for, nor the community I was expecting. Free with live means a very large population of people who will just see Classic as their second home. $15 means only the people that think Classic is the holy grail of gaming will pay for a 14 year old game.


You can if people were saying for years that they would pay anything and no mattter what sub model there was going to be those who view Classic as their aecond home, and who is to say that means they would not be jsut as valid as someone who omly play one version?
11/03/2018 02:59 PMPosted by Koushi
11/03/2018 02:56 PMPosted by Moccoo
...

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read, I think i lost brain cells just reading it..


Quitters are very bitter over what Blizz turned WoW into unlike subbers. They quit to vote with their wallet. They want their sub to be a vote with their wallet.


All of them think that? Come on now. Not everyone quit for the same reasons.
11/03/2018 03:03 PMPosted by Studmuffyn
11/03/2018 02:59 PMPosted by Koushi
...

Quitters are very bitter over what Blizz turned WoW into unlike subbers. They quit to vote with their wallet. They want their sub to be a vote with their wallet.


All of them think that? Come on now. Not everyone quit for the same reasons.


Some of them quit because it wasn't an expense they wanted to pay on a game they didn't feel was worth the money anymore.
11/03/2018 03:01 PMPosted by Studmuffyn
11/03/2018 02:52 PMPosted by Koushi
...

Wait and see if it's worth paying $15, or even spending the time on. Of course, it's $0 extra to a live subber, so they get to be snarky. Sure, I can afford $180/yr, but if the game turns out to be something I only have a mild interest in playing casually and logging in once a week, I can just as easily do without and spend $180 on something else. I've done fine without WoW this long. Just because I can afford something doesn't mean I should be throwing $200 at things I don't use frivolously at every opportunity I get.

The point is you can't just throw around "well some people said they'd pay $30" as an attack on anyone. I'm not really seeing a product I'd pay $15 for, nor the community I was expecting. Free with live means a very large population of people who will just see Classic as their second home. $15 means only the people that think Classic is the holy grail of gaming will pay for a 14 year old game.


You can if people were saying for years that they would pay anything and no mattter what sub model there was going to be those who view Classic as their aecond home, and who is to say that means they would not be jsut as valid as someone who omly play one version?


No you can't. You can only attack those specific people that said that with that line of logic. Those people are not any more relevant than a hobo saying the end is nigh.

Of course there were going to be people that saw Classic as their second home. What this pricing structure does is it incentivizes people who will see Classic as their second home, and disincentivizes people who will see it as their primary home.

People ask how only a combined sub could possibly be bad. For a classic-only player, that's why.
11/02/2018 03:43 PMPosted by Lennix
People spend more on weed and beer monthly, maybe even weekly, than they spend on a WoW sub. It's pretty cheap when compared to other entertainment. Not to mention that this subscription price has existed and remained static for its entire existance. This is how it's always been. What Blizz has done is give an extra server option for the same price. It's actually a pretty good deal. They could have very easily made it a 1 time purchase + sub and gotten away with it. (especially if it was a "collector's edition" sort of thing)


Hell people spend more on coffee than this. But it's not my place to tell someone how to spend their money. I for one will be paying my sub for classic.
Sweet I can now play both. Qq more please. Oh and cry into this cup cause I want to drink your tears.
11/03/2018 03:11 PMPosted by Koushi
11/03/2018 03:03 PMPosted by Studmuffyn
...

All of them think that? Come on now. Not everyone quit for the same reasons.


Some of them quit because it wasn't an expense they wanted to pay on a game they didn't feel was worth the money anymore.


ALong with thousands of other reasons as well, not just the one that supports any pet peeve.

11/03/2018 03:15 PMPosted by Koushi
No you can't. You can only attack those specific people that said that with that line of logic. Those people are not any more relevant than a hobo saying the end is nigh.


Yes I can, you are the only one who wants to minimize people who don't share your bias. Sorry it was not a small number that said and agreed with that sentiment.

Of course there were going to be people that saw Classic as their second home. What this pricing structure does is it incentivizes people who will see Classic as their second home, and disincentives people who will see it as their primary home.


Not anymore than any sub model, you assume one way because of your bias, no matter what people will do this, paying 5$ extra is not going to deter anyone from that, and like I said, so what? They cared enough to want to play, they pay the sub the same as someone who ONLY plays one title, their presence is just as valid as anyones.

And no it 'disincentives'(sp) only those who were looking for any excuse to not pay anything to play, or wanted only a cheaper option, which funny enough I would have been fine with and honestly expected, and you know what? They could still implement a classic only sub, but I imagine the combined access would still stay.

11/03/2018 03:15 PMPosted by Koushi
People ask how only a combined sub could possibly be bad. For a classic-only player, that's why.


Yah from "I would pay anything to play" to "Well but as long as its not x$ "

You seem to think that there no demand at all from this and only current players were going to play in masse, sorry it took demand from ALL former and current players to get to happen, and there are tens of millions more former players than current, and it is not a small number like you want it to be for some reason.