I have read all of the arguments from the retail players on how paying for a version of the game that they will never play is reasonable.
But it doesn't seem that anyone is advocating for retail players that don't want Classic lumped into their retail pricing. If they don't want to support classic, should they have to?
I submit that each individual pricing should be equal and fair for both types of players. This eliminates arguments from both sides and makes the subscribing base completely balanced.
$15.00 a month for retail
$15.00 a month for classic
$30.00 a month for both.
This way, retail players don't have to pay or support a version of the game that they don't want or will not play.
#Nochanges
It's just $15 so perhaps we can get this going as it's completely fair.
Or just make a reasonable arguement on how this is not good/will not work/isn't fair.
The only reason anyone would ever post something like this is if they were deliberately trying to fracture the community and make a product fail. So, yeah. Beat it troll.
11/05/2018 08:28 AMPosted by OogaThe only reason anyone would ever post something like this is if they were deliberately trying to fracture the community and make a product fail. So, yeah. Beat it troll.
You're not posting a resonable arguement and your assesment is completely wrong. Its fair. Are you not for equality?
You can do better than that. Dig your thinking cap out of the closet and come at me with valid points. "Fracturing the community" is a meaningless term. People will play what version that they want.
Pretty obvious troll attempt. Could have been more subtle on the delivery. I would have changed your prices a bit to increase the effectiveness of your bait. Perhaps 13/13/25 respectively.
Overall 2/10
Overall 2/10
11/05/2018 08:28 AMPosted by Oogafracture the community
You are such a retail troll it isn't even funny.
Why pay for an outdated game? I'd rather pay $15 for 2 versions of the game
11/05/2018 08:31 AMPosted by ThèónWhy pay for an outdated game? I'd rather pay $15 for 2 versions of the game
What about the retail players that don't want classic? This isn't fair to them at all.
How about the shared sub, but the same amount of a paywall to play classic as there is to play BFA.
The subscription is for "World of Warcraft".
Basically there will be two world types: Classic and *insert current expansion here*
Both groups are paying for World of Warcraft as a whole, not just their specific world type.
Classic isn't going to be a separate game, simply a separate world type. (Much like how PvP & PvE servers used to have a different ruleset.)
It's even under the "World of Warcraft" tab in battle.net.
Basically there will be two world types: Classic and *insert current expansion here*
Both groups are paying for World of Warcraft as a whole, not just their specific world type.
Classic isn't going to be a separate game, simply a separate world type. (Much like how PvP & PvE servers used to have a different ruleset.)
It's even under the "World of Warcraft" tab in battle.net.
11/05/2018 08:29 AMPosted by LagspikePretty obvious troll attempt. Could have been more subtle on the delivery. I would have changed your prices a bit to increase the effectiveness of your bait. Perhaps 13/13/25 respectively.
Overall 2/10
I'm 100% serious.
If retail is worth $15.00 a month then pay it.
If classic is worth $15.00 a month then people will pay it.
Its only $15.00.
As I suspected, nobody can argue this. #bulletproof
I'm glad I can hop between BfA and classic when I want to and not be charged extra. Also I think its a great model flat $15 a month for access to all of WoW.
ROFLMFAO sorry child, couldn't be further from the truth11/05/2018 08:30 AMPosted by Thermiss11/05/2018 08:28 AMPosted by Oogafracture the community
You are such a retail troll it isn't even funny.
11/05/2018 08:32 AMPosted by Hexagon11/05/2018 08:31 AMPosted by ThèónWhy pay for an outdated game? I'd rather pay $15 for 2 versions of the game
What about the retail players that don't want classic? This isn't fair to them at all.
They can simply not install it then.
Classic is WoW. Modern WoW is WoW. They're both WoW. It's a WoW sub.
If it were any simpler it'd be Herman Munster.
11/05/2018 08:34 AMPosted by Hexagon11/05/2018 08:29 AMPosted by LagspikePretty obvious troll attempt. Could have been more subtle on the delivery. I would have changed your prices a bit to increase the effectiveness of your bait. Perhaps 13/13/25 respectively.
Overall 2/10
I'm 100% serious.
If retail is worth $15.00 a month then pay it.
If classic is worth $15.00 a month then people will pay it.
Its only $15.00.
As I suspected, nobody can argue this. #bulletproof
You're attempt to double down on your troll is quite admirable. But a troll is still a troll.
1/10.
11/05/2018 08:34 AMPosted by AzerothinianThe subscription is for "World of Warcraft".
Basically there will be two world types: Classic and *insert current expansion here*
Both groups are paying for World of Warcraft as a whole, not just their specific world type.
Classic isn't going to be a separate game, simply a separate world type. (Much like how PvP & PvE servers used to have a different ruleset.)
It's even under the "World of Warcraft" tab in battle.net.
This is the most valid argument I've heard against it but I submit that they are in fact, different games at this point.
11/05/2018 08:28 AMPosted by OogaThe only reason anyone would ever post something like this is if they were deliberately trying to fracture the community and make a product fail. So, yeah. Beat it troll.
I don't think he's a troll. I think he's trying to prove a point, which is that $15 a month for retail and classic is good even if you're not ever going to play one or the other. Retail and classic will be mutually beneficial.
$15/month has always been the monthly fee for WoW. It's part of the vanilla experience. And whether you realize it or not, there are always costs involved with running servers even if there isn't new content being created.
And those of you who say, "Buy I despise retail and I don't want to support it."... Well you're a fool. You're just a fool. That argument is illogical. You're supporting Blizzard either way, not just retail, but Blizzard. You're putting money into the same box whether there is a separate classic subscription or not.
So stop saying this. It's a bad argument and frankly just makes you look like a greedy, whiny, entitled fool.
11/05/2018 08:40 AMPosted by HexagonThis is the most valid argument I've heard against it but I submit that they are in fact, different games at this point.
Good thing for us that Blizzard disagrees, as do I.
Not that I've played Live since mid-Legion, but I think that having one sub for the entire title, even with the different rule-set servers, is the best option.
Everyone's money is going to support (as far as we know) World of Warcraft. That's the way it should be. No Classic players, no Live players, only World of Warcraft players.
I don't see the big deal here. Pay the sub and play or don't play whatever version you prefer. I'm not a fan of bfa (or the past several expansions) but I don't have this weird hate for the game.
Some of the retail players might actually like classic and stick with it. This will help our populations and community. With the same thought, some classic players may try out retail and enjoy it.
We can also expect classic to stick around for a long time by linking our sub with the #1 mmorpg (whether you like it or not).
Also, this was the most likely sub model. The majority of classic community expected this model.
Some of the retail players might actually like classic and stick with it. This will help our populations and community. With the same thought, some classic players may try out retail and enjoy it.
We can also expect classic to stick around for a long time by linking our sub with the #1 mmorpg (whether you like it or not).
Also, this was the most likely sub model. The majority of classic community expected this model.
Combining subs = Blizzard gets to announce total player subs once they peak 6mil+
Separate subs = no tourists on classic, no need for sharding, additional income from new audience who doesn't play retail, people who only play 1 don't support a game they don't play, classic players could get a lower sub fee instead of retail prices, overall community would be more happy and think highly of blizzard once again for not being greedy pig farmers.
Combined subs it is said Blizzard, the greedy pig farmers.
Separate subs = no tourists on classic, no need for sharding, additional income from new audience who doesn't play retail, people who only play 1 don't support a game they don't play, classic players could get a lower sub fee instead of retail prices, overall community would be more happy and think highly of blizzard once again for not being greedy pig farmers.
Combined subs it is said Blizzard, the greedy pig farmers.
11/05/2018 08:47 AMPosted by AshtroThe majority of classic community expected this model.
I would like to see your accumulated statistics you've done to come to that conclusion.