I’ve always wondered why we pay for a new expansion? I mean it’s just another large patch update.
We already pay an expensive subscription (I don’t even know what I pay because I’ve auto paid for so long). Average life of an expansion is almost 2 years. Let’s be generous and say 1 1/2. With a $15/m sub. That’s $270, for one expansion pack. Multiply that by hundreds of thousands. Yeah …
Okay, I get it, they deserve more money based on their hard work. People gotta get bonuses from somewhere. Well wouldn’t the extra revenue be from their shop? I mean I don’t want to even know how much they made off the auction house mount alone. (Guilty, I bought it.)
Just makes me wonder if Blizzard should stop charging us for a new expansion? Just seems a bit old fashioned and out dated. Now people are expected to buy Expansions for classic as well.
You ask a good question. In theory, the monthly fee covers server costs, minor and patch content updates, and expansions cover the simultaneous development of new zones, quests and systems. Store microtransactions and services is free money on top.
Me, I think the price of an expansion should be factored into the subscription.
Say, an extra $2.50-$3.00 a month gets you the next expansion automatically. If you don’t stay subbed for the entire time you have to make up the difference for the time you don’t stay subbed which you have to pay before the expansion comes out.
I could live with that, it would save me having to find the gold or the money when it launches.
It also creates a big focused burst of revenue around pre orders and launch that probably dwarfs that of a major patch.
Increasing sub costs sounds like it’d work if you’re expecting someone to stay subbed (they could bump up the yearly sub pack for this). A large lump sum is better for blizzard to get money out of the people who buy the expansion, pay for a month and dip.
I have a hunch that there might be someone(s) whose sole job is figuring out optimal juice squeezing techniques, though, and they’re probably not just winging it.
If we account for inflation, the increased costs of maintaining servers, and a myriad of other things - the fact that we still pay the same amount as we did 20 years ago makes this anything but ‘expensive’. Sure, it costs a relatively substantial amount of money but gaming is a luxury pastime; if you don’t want to do it, then don’t pay for it.
Game developers are routinely underpaid and at large studios like that of Blizzard, they are underpaid, overworked, and underappreciated both in the workplace and outside of it. Sure, this isn’t really a consumer’s concern but it is something to take note of if one starts talking about the ‘worth’ of their work, as well as whether it is ‘expensive’ or not.
Probably not, for all of the above mentioned reasons making this a relatively silly non-sequitur argument.
This part I find, personally, just weird. But I find the people who play Classic as if the game was new as equally if not more weird.
So… no. Folks aren’t “expected” to buy 'em, but they are there because weirdos want to play the game essentially in reverse? Not entirely sure what or how to describe Classic players who buy and play old expansions as if like they were new expansions.
Oh, I missed this part initially. Is this to do with the classic packs with boosts and mounts? Otherwise, I thought classic players just have to stay subbed and get given new classic versions without paying more unless they want the boosts.
I dislike the notion that inflation makes it ok, since inflation alone isn’t the whole story. There’s so many factors into pricing, including production costs, and considering the average customers income vs their cost of living.
Like, yes, inflation does mean the prices should go up. But then you also consider that they have so many other income avenues now (like in game store, wow token, classic wow releases, multiple deluxe versions of each release that are also at greatly increased prices) and that they don’t really do physical releases anymore, which really saves a lot on production costs, and you realise that prices should also be going down
Inflation is such a small factor when you consider everything else
EDIT: I find it most telling that even Bobby Kotick himself was against raising sub prices because he knew it was a bad idea and it was better to find alternative sources of monetization
Aren’t employees still paid peanuts at blizz too? I’d only be slightly surprised if American companies came up with “adopt-a-dev” (similar to how zoos get donations for animals) program to subsidise wages
I joke.
Whatever the market will bear, right? Or something.
From all i hear, yes, they are. Because Blizzard still thinks they are the rockstars of the gaming industry and employees should feel privileged to work there.
They also automate a lot now, including customer service and the report system, so they save a lot from not hiring nearly as many community staff, GMs and support technicians now, too.
WoW is an incredibly streamlined revenue generator
This information is irrelevant. I am talking about overall revenue that Blizzard makes from just WoW and how is already covers the expansions. The underpaid, underappreciated developers is how Blizzards Higher corporate deals with these things.
Literally the same concept, if you don’t like the company you work for, then find another job.
Depends on the game tbqh. I’m eagerly awaiting the Sea of Stars DLC releasing later today, which is free. Then there’s stuff like Stardew Valley that has had so many huge free additions post launch. There’s lots of games that gives high quality DLC for free.
That being said… I wouldn’t trust Blizzard to release something high quality for free. Or any AAA company for that matter.
You say that as if the video game industry is a highly accessible and stable industry right now and thousands of game devs don’t get laid off every year even for highly successful launches.
That’s assuming everyone stays subbed all the time though, isn’t it? Without the numbers you wouldn’t know how many accounts but an expansion and then lapse after 30 days.
It also feels like you’re arguing that they should only charge costs as a for-profit? I’d love to save money lol, but I’m playing devils advocate here.
Short answer, yes. Long answer, uhh pretend I wrote something long and impressive. It can be complicated.
I joke.