10/24/2018 02:14 PMPosted by
Medeoan
Won't happen. Why? Because it creates a barrier to marketing. It further frustrates customers who won't be willing to pay for 2 subs and wish to play both. It will also frustrate those who are willing, but would rather not.
Finally, I vote no as you have no compelling arguement. You are just borrowing trouble out of fear.
I wonder how many people will actually want to play both. A large chunk of the Classic audience doesn’t care for retail, doesn’t care about playing with people that like retail, and not going to want to listen to retail players wanting “QoL” changes.
I could be wrong but the retail people, I mean the ones that like retail, are not going to be happy with Classic.
I see that as two vastly different and incompatible target audiences.
Anyone that truly loves vanilla will have no problem paying for the game and a sub. Could honestly care less about everyone else. I would rather play with people that appreciate the game.
Give BFA players a separate trial server where they can quit after an hour. We all know 99% of them wont make it past lv5 anyway.
Says the 120 bfa Pally!!! LOL
Guess we wont be seeing you @ 60.
Combined sub. Combined playerbases. Easier to manage.
10/24/2018 02:06 PMPosted by
Narya
I don't care about having to purchase Classic (one-time fee) or not.
I don't really care what the subscription fee is; I'm pretty sure it's not going to be more than $15 for Classic.
But please, Blizzard, don't bundle Classic for free with Live. Some of us aren't interested in playing live, will never be interested in playing live, and would prefer the character names we wanted weren't grabbed by retail players who just wanted to poke their heads in and yell LOL WHY ARE YOU PLAYING AN OLD GAME WHAT"S WRONG WITH YOU!!!111?
Give Live players a discount if you want. Make paying for either Classic or Retail cost $15/month but paying for both of them cost only $20. Or make them entirely separate, such that paying for both of them costs $30. Or make Classic cheaper because it's not what you care about. Just don't offer Classic free with a Retail subscription.
Agreed 111%!
Separate subs would have the additional bonus that it would be much easier to see how much revenue is generated by Classic, and finance the project accordingly.
1 Like
10/24/2018 02:14 PMPosted by
Medeoan
Won't happen. Why? Because it creates a barrier to marketing. It further frustrates customers who won't be willing to pay for 2 subs and wish to play both. It will also frustrate those who are willing, but would rather not.
Finally, I vote no as you have no compelling arguement. You are just borrowing trouble out of fear.
I wonder how many people will actually want to play both. A large chunk of the Classic audience doesn’t care for retail, doesn’t care about playing with people that like retail, and not going to want to listen to retail players wanting “QoL” changes.
I could be wrong but the retail people, I mean the ones that like retail, are not going to be happy with Classic.
I see that as two vastly different and incompatible target audiences.
We will all be "retail" players after classic launches.
Sounds like a large chunk of the player base is a bunch of stuck up snobs who are full of themselves.
Vanilla was chock full of change requests by players. Oh that's right those were retail players asking for those changes. Guess it's pretty authentic already.
1 Like
...
I wonder how many people will actually want to play both. A large chunk of the Classic audience doesn’t care for retail, doesn’t care about playing with people that like retail, and not going to want to listen to retail players wanting “QoL” changes.
I could be wrong but the retail people, I mean the ones that like retail, are not going to be happy with Classic.
I see that as two vastly different and incompatible target audiences.
We will all be "retail" players after classic launches.
Sounds like a large chunk of the player base is a bunch of stuck up snobs who are full of themselves.
Vanilla was chock full of change requests by players. Oh that's right those were retail players asking for those changes. Guess it's pretty authentic already.
So far “retail” is the only label that has stuck for the product with the expansions. Using “current” won’t work either when they are both released.
they will bundle it with live to make it look like live is alive. They will mix the subs for classic with retail subs when reporting numbers.
10/24/2018 02:17 PMPosted by
Nicho
My knee jerk reaction is to say have it be separate but then I think.... the more people who play... the more classic wow succeeds...the more of a chance they run with this system.
More chance to ruin this system, more chance to ruin gameplay, more chance to create void realms because toruists, etc...
Classic is such a different game from retail though, the type of players who love how easy retail is and hitting the level cap in a day, wont like Classic for the most part so the two communities wont mingle much.
EDIT:
Never mind. I just read that Blizz caved in at once to hordies whining about having to "betray Sylvanas", all the while spitting on the face of Alliance players in all possible ways.
And what's even more absurd is that all this is happening while the horde to Alliance ratio is increasing all the time, for obvious reasone.
Blizz never listened to ANY suggestion/request/plea/whine etc. from Ally players. And trust me, they never will.
So, you really hate us Allies, Blizz. I am fully returning the sentiment.
You won't get a dime any more from THIS Alliance player Blizz, not even for Classic, which you will manage to botch anyway. :P
10/24/2018 02:57 PMPosted by
Wanta
10/24/2018 02:17 PMPosted by
Nicho
My knee jerk reaction is to say have it be separate but then I think.... the more people who play... the more classic wow succeeds...the more of a chance they run with this system. Yeah we will get trolls but they will be dealt with soon enough. Plus its not like trolls are going to take the time to level to actually do any damage.
But then they will be able to troll our forums requesting changes.
simple fix make it so you need a 30 or higher character to post
10/24/2018 03:31 PMPosted by
Kiyrin
You think Blizzard wouldn't be able to do this without charging separate subscriptions?
I think it likely. Bundling it with the retail subscription rules out those who don't want to support retail. It also means there's no real way to tell which people playing retail are only doing Classic because it's free.
Separate subscriptions removes a lot of gray areas as far as demographics go.
No sub. Buy to play as there is no new content or content changes.
The only view on this matter that makes sense.
1 Like
10/24/2018 03:31 PMPosted by
Kiyrin
You think Blizzard wouldn't be able to do this without charging separate subscriptions?
I think it likely. Bundling it with the retail subscription rules out those who don't want to support retail. It also means there's no real way to tell which people playing retail are only doing Classic because it's free.
Separate subscriptions removes a lot of gray areas as far as demographics go.
Blizzard wants you to play Live. Why? Because you get access to their CASH SHOP!!!!!
So it is in their interest to link the subscriptions. Because while you may not play the live version, someone may. And they may spend $25 on a mount or other cash shop goodies.
A shared subscriptions gets more people in front of their cash shop for more money. Blizzard is a business and not a charity. A shared subscription is a better business decisions as it allows "returning" customers to spend more money.
Again.... yes, you may not spend more money. But someone will.
10/24/2018 03:26 PMPosted by
Narya
Sure. Those'll be people who want to try Classic, which is wonderful. Or people who want to spend BFA gold on trolling, whatever. Not people who see no reason not to troll since they can do it effortlessly for free.
Considering how easy it is to get gold on retail, and how much people HAVE on retail compared to how dirt cheap wow tokens are, expect people to troll for "free" so to speak.
Separate price or the same price, people will troll no matter what and keeping it in one payment works for both sides. It can get people interested in Classic and keep their subs open instead of cancelling, or it could get people bored of Classic might go try retail, with the same result.
Their account remains opened.
10/24/2018 02:06 PMPosted by
Narya
I don't care about having to purchase Classic (one-time fee) or not.
I don't really care what the subscription fee is; I'm pretty sure it's not going to be more than $15 for Classic.
But please, Blizzard, don't bundle Classic for free with Live. Some of us aren't interested in playing live, will never be interested in playing live, and would prefer the character names we wanted weren't grabbed by retail players who just wanted to poke their heads in and yell LOL WHY ARE YOU PLAYING AN OLD GAME WHAT"S WRONG WITH YOU!!!111?
Give Live players a discount if you want. Make paying for either Classic or Retail cost $15/month but paying for both of them cost only $20. Or make them entirely separate, such that paying for both of them costs $30. Or make Classic cheaper because it's not what you care about. Just don't offer Classic free with a Retail subscription.
Please blizzard bundle classic with live. The more people the better. I want full servers, maxed out, 10k+ people online every day. More players online = more world PvP
10/24/2018 02:17 PMPosted by
Wanta
I too would like a separate sub to minimize the trolling and spam.
Hahahaha.
Oh wait you're serious. Let me laugh harder.
HAHAHAHA
I think one shared sub is the best move for Blizzard, not because of the cash shop or anything, but just because of sub revenue in general. It's clear from expansion launch numbers that there are still a lot of people interested in coming back when it grabs their interest, but then the numbers fall off rapidly. If there is zero barrier for players to check out the other side of the fence whenever they get a little bored of what they're currently playing, they're more likely to stay subbed continuously for longer periods where they might have unsubbed otherwise. My guess is smoothing out those dips would mean more to Blizzard than a few extra cash shop sales or something ever would.
So far “retail” is the only label that has stuck for the product with the expansions. Using “current” won’t work either when they are both released.
How about "Battle for Azeroth" and "World of Warcraft"?
Anyone that truly loves vanilla will have no problem paying for the game and a sub. Could honestly care less about everyone else. I would rather play with people that appreciate the game.
Give BFA players a separate trial server where they can quit after an hour. We all know 99% of them wont make it past lv5 anyway.
Says the 120 bfa Pally!!! LOL
Guess we wont be seeing you @ 60.
Combined sub. Combined playerbases. Easier to manage.
I haven't been subbed for a while. I gave BFA a try and was bored within weeks. Leveling this guy was the only enjoyable part of BFA for me.
As I already stated, a combined playerbase will be bad for Classic servers. Vanilla wasn't a single player lobby game like retail.
10/24/2018 03:31 PMPosted by
Kiyrin
You think Blizzard wouldn't be able to do this without charging separate subscriptions?
I think it likely. Bundling it with the retail subscription rules out those who don't want to support retail. It also means there's no real way to tell which people playing retail are only doing Classic because it's free.
Of course they'll be able to tell, by how many hours a player spends on one server type versus another server type, at what point in the patch cycle, and whatever other metrics Blizzard has available, which will be far more than just "pays subscription for."
Separate subscriptions removes a lot of gray areas as far as demographics go.
Even if Blizzard wouldn't have those metrics, what would it matter? Classic is not going to get further development beyond bug fixes after launch. Maybe a progression raid rollout up to Naxxramas, but that would be it.
It's not going to be a reboot/2nd MMO.