I see you are not aware of how much damage a corrupt pserver can do to Blizzard.
Reclaiming the IP is the primary goal. Added subs is the bonus.
This is why Blizzard says they are ok if Classic has 10’s of players.
I know that’s what everyone thinks, but does it really hold up, that they’d produce a recreation of a product that they’ve said from the outset has no roadmap, no further plans, and no extra content, just to chase subs.
Even if there’s a burst of subs temporarily, a two year project to recreate Classic isn’t going to keep a general sub population for as long as people think and it’ll soon settle down to a more “like other MMOs” population with us diehard fans continuing to explore and play to the nth degree, but the majority of tourists disappearing again.
If they wanted a sustainable subs source, they really need to be talking about the development of something on the Classic philosophy but with an extendable lifespan.
Based on how they’ve gone about it, this really does feel like a fanservice project with the aim of providing a game you can pick up and show your kids what you spent 10 years of your life playing back when you were their age.
If they were really chasing subs, there’d be advertisement everywhere, and I haven’t even seen a one.
Except that it’s not really assumptions. All the blue posts we’ve had and everything we know for sure about Classics indicates a very strict no changes policy on Blizzard’s end.
Could they do something strange like introduce transmog? Well not if they stick to what they’ve already said. They already explicitly said there won’t be transmog.
I honestly can’t think of anything that they haven’t already explicitly addressed with a “no changes” type policy. And if there is anything it would be very inconsistent of them to stray from that.
So it’s very, very, very safe to assume at this point that we’re getting no changes. There aren’t many unanswered questions left.
People have to ignore the philosophy in order to justify their pet change’s inclusion as a “special case”.
An authentic return to the vanilla gaming experience would be to start with patch 1.1 and add content over the next two years along the same timeline as vanilla wow. It would also not include any of the modern features such as battle.net, the anticheat mechanisms, sharding, resolutions, framerates, etc.
Instead, 1.12 is the foundation on which classic wow is being built. Elements of the game will be pulled from different patches as well making it a patchwork of vanilla. Content is even be released in phases along a different timeline.
Changes are also being introduced to make use of the technology of today.
There are many other changes that could be discussed that would have little to no effect on game play as well (if that is really the standard for determining if a change is okay or not) that are still being discussed or supposedly considered–many of which could improve the quality of the gaming experience without changing game play.
Now I am not advocating for or against changes. I’m simply saying you aren’t the one that gets to decide that there is nothing on the table and nothing is open. You can advocate for what you want in the game or against what you don’t want in the game but in the end, the developers are the ones making the decisions.
I will also point out that the game is not being developed for you or for people that only want a return to vanilla. Blizzard recognizes that a classic version of wow will increase subs for less cost than developing a new expansion. They are developing the game for the money and they will make whatever changes they can/need to make without sinking the ship.
I’m not about to list possible change after possible change. That will end up running off in strawman territory.
What I am saying is already in history as happening. No one expected sharding. When the demo had it there was a ton of heartache. Or, health regen rates. Yes, Blizzard has come in and explained both. After the fact.
That’s my point though. They explain after not before. We have zero knowledge of impending changes or the lack there of.
Blizzard has purposely NOT made a blue post saying no changes. Does not mean there are going to be changes. It’s Blizzard’s product and they can do whatever they want.
adjective: authentic
1.
- of undisputed origin; genuine.
“the letter is now accepted as an authentic document”
synonyms: genuine, original, real, actual, pukka, bona fide, true, veritable
antonyms: fake, spurious- made or done in the traditional or original way, or in a way that faithfully resembles an original.
“the restaurant serves authentic Italian meals”- based on facts; accurate or reliable.
“an authentic depiction of the situation”
synonyms: reliable, dependable, trustworthy, authoritative, honest, faithful; More
antonyms: unreliable, inaccurate- (in existentialist philosophy) relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life.
I think you’re mistaking “Authentic” and “Exact”. They are producing content patches that align with the original patches in an authentic manner. They are not reproducing 2004 down to the final detail.
1 Like
Sharding and loot trading have a high impact on Blizzard’s operational costs. That’s why they’re being implemented. They also have acknowledged the regrettable impact that it could potentially have on the vanilla experience.
That’s why we’re getting limited sharding and that’s why loot trading has been adjusted to only exist in raids.
It all comes back to Blizzard doing their best to maintain an authentic no changes vanilla experience. That’s the goal of Classic.
If it wasn’t how it was in vanilla it’ll be how it was in vanilla when Classic is launched. Blizzard acknowledged that the demo was not the finished product and that it still had a lot of kinks to work out. In other words; the demo was a demo.
Also this issue may have been blown out of proportion by people who tried the demo coming from private servers.
They could introduce unicorn mounts that fart rainbows if they really wanted to.
So what? It wouldn’t be consistent with what they’ve told us so far or what the community asked for. That’s my point.
Gameplay changes beyond the bounds of 1.12 would be contradictory to everything they’ve told us.
1 Like
You mean like:
P.S.: “OMG THE DEMON SUMMONS ARE WRONG!”
Blizzard: “NO U”
2 Likes
The point that a lot of people don’t get, is that Blizzard is making changes that move it away from Vanilla, and we argue for them to be ‘more vanilla’. When people argue to be ‘less Vanilla’, the community argues amongst itself and Blizzard says nothing (and probably thinks “Man, what are these people on? They wanted authentic, now they want Guild Banks”).
1 Like
we think we do, but we don’t
We do. Where “We” is a subset of people who want classic however.
1 Like
I can’t tell if my joke went over your head or not
1 Like
Wide open for heartaches with that assumption. Your choice.
On the contrary, you’re laying down flat under a falling anvil with your chest cut open exposing your raw beating heart to absolute obliteration if you honestly expect changes beyond 1.12.
1 Like
I think they’re trying to point out that there’s already sharding in there.
Or making a case for AV 1.5 and no DHKs.
Sharding saves Blizzard money. Transmog, post 1.12 class balance and guild banks don’t.
So that’s fairly moot point as moot points go.
Which are valid arguments within the bounds of vanilla. The honor system did exist for a short time without DHKs in vanilla’s lifetime. And obviously AV 1.5 was a thing.
I think it’s a bit silly when people flip out about those things, but they’re still consistent with the no changes philosophy at least.
1 Like
Well AV 1.5 is outside the bounds of 1.12, because 1.12 has two boundaries, “nothing before 1.12” and “nothing after 1.12”.
If you only mean nothing after 1.12, I’d amend your statement to get along with Ristra.
1 Like
I extend the full welcome to you to find a single post I have made where I have asked for or requested a change.
Right. And that seems to be more consistent with Blizzard’s version of “no changes” which seems to basically mean 1.12 with release schedules. And I’m ok with that.
But the communities definition of “no changes” is more loose and potentially includes anything between 1.1 and 1.12.
1 Like