I Want Wrath Classic, Not Cataclysm!

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
61

Amen. Team Zihkari.

62

The only possible explanation for why blizzard didn’t release a BC era and a Wrath era is Vanilla era wasn’t profitable. I don’t get why people think a company should take a loss to give you what you want.

3 Likes
63

At least one person gets it. It’s called a cost-benefit analysis. Blizzard have access to the statistics. Nobody else does as much as some scrubs try and pretend they do. Blizzard know how players move around based on releases such as HC, SoM and the varrious classic releases. And I fully suspect Blizzard would like people to invest top dollar on their new retail outing right now. Blizzard promised a classic era offering and they delivered. They did not promise anything more. No amount of whining by the Era Andy’s will change that until Blizzard have a solid business case for it, if ever.

64

“Cost-benefit” is exactly right. I doubt Blizzard made any real money from Wrath and they’re not doing any better with Cata. WoW stopped being Blizzard’s flagship a long time ago. They don’t make the majority of their money from subs but from micro transactions - the cash shop. And that’s exactly why they introduced tokens in classic. Profit is why they cut staff and why bugs persist, sometimes for YEARS. They don’t care about the bugs with mounts, or the UI, or the raid lockouts, or the flight paths, or the quests, blah blah. Just as long as the whales keep buying those tokens and other cash shop nonsense.

They DO NOT CARE about what their customers want, and they DO NOT CARE about making a solid game. Their bottom line doesn’t rest on ANY of that. Some years ago Blizzard was doing the bare minimum. They’re not even doing that anymore.

So Blizzard could know that a Wrath era would have more people playing it. That doesn’t matter. It most likely wouldn’t matter to them if every person stopped playing Cata. They honestly don’t care who plays what. The micro transactions are all that matter.

2 Likes
65

What i don’t get is why you think it’s the company taking a loss.

They have the assets already. We aren’t asking for constant updates, which is the entire point of era. And it would give X number of sub continuation, where X is a number greater than 0.

So
 [travolta.gif]

Where’s the loss??

3 Likes
66

Classic is supposed to put progression pservers out of business. If blizzard does what they do, those communities will likely come here which is just easily more income for the company, and will likely be happier because they will also deal with way less bugs. There would be no need for those servers anymore and rightfully so because those places are always sketch asf and/or just horribly P2W even if they promise not to be when they’re in pre-launch phase, and well, not to mention illegal.

Blizzard easily has the resources and the manpower a hundred times more than a pserver, they just choose not to use it. Nothing ever worth doing is easy I suppose.

3 Likes
67

If BC era and Wrath era are so obviously profitable why do you think blizzard didn’t add them?

4 Likes
68

They didn’t want the player base spread out thinly over too many versions of the game. Which is a pretty good argument. In terms of cost I don’t think that’s the issue, as they have hosted dead retail realms for many years now. On Eitrigg, I remember standing alone in the middle of Orgrimmar, not another player in sight, sometime back in Cata before virtual realms. Yes, they did merge many of the dead realms, but had they been wildly expensive to run simply would have been shut down one would assume.

1 Like
69

The same reason they don’t do any of the objectively good things they could do.

2 Likes
70

You support your claim that BC era and Wrath era are objectively good business ventures by claiming that there were other objectively good business ventures they didn’t make. It’s circular reasoning that doesn’t argue anything and shows a profound lack of understanding about what “objectively” means.

My reasoning is simple. Activision/blizzard was sold to Microsoft for 75.4 billion dollars. Do you have any idea how rare that is? Very few companies have that level of market prominence. What ever you might think of their creative division you don’t get that big without having good market analysts on the payroll. You don’t do it by leaving profitable ventures on the table. You do it by making the right decisions hundreds of times and very rarely making the wrong decisions.

Your whole argument is blizzard is just stupid. My argument is they’re very smart. The evidence supports my argument.

4 Likes
71

Thanks for confirming my comment: " Nobody else does as much as some scrubs try and pretend they do"

The first correct thing you have said.

Again with the whiny scrub nonsense with you stating assumptions disguised as facts. Again, you have no idea.

I know I sure don’t care what the whiny Era Andy’s want.

72

You don’t have to be a pilot to know the plane’s on fire.

  • We know they’ve cut staff.
  • We know they take ages to fix bugs, if they get fixed at all.
  • We know they ignore their customers when they’re asked about issues, even on their Twitter.
  • We know it takes days to get a ticket answered when it used to take hours, and their first response is an auto reply.
  • We know they added microtransactions to Classic.
    And we can read:

Blizzard Loses Millions Of Monthly Players But Is Making More Money

Last year, it made $4.85 billion on in-game content, and the year before that it was $4.2 billion. The overall revenue was “only” the second-highest ever, but the in-game revenue was the highest it has ever been.

Activision Blizzard, which owns popular gaming franchises Call of Duty, Warcraft, Overwatch, Diablo and Candy Crush, netted US$1.8bn from microtransactions and downloadable content in the fourth quarter, a 46% year-on-year increase.

In-game net bookings for the entire financial year were US $5.4bn, compared to US$ 5.1bn in 2021.

So they have millions of fewer customers but are making more money. They know why a lot of those players quit, AND THEY DON’T CARE. Why would they?

Neither does Blizzard. But then again, they don’t care what you want, either.

2 Likes
73

But I’m not the one whining with entitlement syndrome. I’m going with the flow, enjoying the content I have. Unlike your whiny mouth.

1 Like
74

Meaningless verbiage.

1 Like
75

Give me weapon enchant transmogging.

If you can give me a full report on why this would be bad, and leave it on my desk for the morning, i will get right back to you.

Thanks.

76

That’s easy. How many new subs will blizzard get if they add weapon enchant transmogging? How many subs has blizzard lost because there is no weapon enchant transmogging? That’s in part how a market analyst looks at the game. There is no profit to be gained by adding weapon enchant transmogging, just as there is no profit in adding a BC era and a Wrath era. At least with weapon enchant transmogging after the dev time cost to create it there is no further cost. While with era servers there’s a constant drain on resources.

1 Like
77

Well see here’s the thing. You are going on ignore now, because it hurts my head to try and lower myself to your IQ level, You’ll be right at home with all the other Era Andy’s on ignore.[quote=“Outtis-pagle, post:74, topic:1866051, full:true”]
Meaningless verbiage.
[/quote]

This is the best you can do? Sad.

78

Weird Cataclysm seems to be going very well, and only 3 total people are asking for Wrath, maybe we can finally let these threads die, you won’t get Wrath servers, might get some in 6 years when they do it all again.

5 Likes
79

It wasnt a opinion. It really did happen. The subs dropped massively after a week of cata. plenty of evidence to see that.

Not true. That’s why the biggest PS is wrath? wrath had the highest sub count in retail. numbers dont lie.

1 Like
80

You know what wrath also had? Continuation of the storyline with Arthas. A lot of people played wrath for that reason alone.

2 Likes