Classic Box Cost

Classic Discussion
Prev 1 7 8 9 16 Next
11/11/2018 07:18 PMPosted by Bandajo
11/11/2018 07:08 PMPosted by Echota

I would be totally indifferent to an early access fee. I just wouldn't pay it. We're the sort who play for the journey, not the destination. Getting to 60 a little later would not be a concern.

I'm not sure though whether it's in Blizzard's best interest to encourage folks to wait, rather than start subbing when excitement is at its peak. There's always the danger that something else will catch folks' attention or that negative reports of one sort or another will scare them off while they're waiting for general access.


Yeah its tricky. I don't know what % of the player base would opt for an early start, and maybe it does scare some people from playing. But in a way thats the point. Current retail subs can watch someone stream it and realize its not their cup of tea. Instead of hitting the login servers on that busy first day though theyd save themselves the hassle of downloading the client just to try the new shiny thing.

Insofar as its scaring away current subs from trying it temporarily I think thats a good thing. But you're right there's a risk it scares away non subs from trying as well - if thats true Classic would be a bust.


None of these ideas take the place of a demo period of 10 levels
11/11/2018 12:35 PMPosted by Brokenwind
11/11/2018 12:31 PMPosted by Ristra
The hand that Blizzard has been showing tells us their target is to use Classic as a retainer. So unless threads like this gain traction I wouldn’t expect a purchase price.


Those hands are also showing that they think people wanted diablo on their phones.
Which isn't changing. They are still going to make that game.
11/11/2018 07:29 PMPosted by Ristra
11/11/2018 12:35 PMPosted by Brokenwind
...

Those hands are also showing that they think people wanted diablo on their phones.
Which isn't changing. They are still going to make that game.


Technically they have farmed it out for someone else to reskin on top of an existing game.
11/11/2018 07:26 PMPosted by Brokenwind
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Yeah its tricky. I don't know what % of the player base would opt for an early start, and maybe it does scare some people from playing. But in a way thats the point. Current retail subs can watch someone stream it and realize its not their cup of tea. Instead of hitting the login servers on that busy first day though theyd save themselves the hassle of downloading the client just to try the new shiny thing.

Insofar as its scaring away current subs from trying it temporarily I think thats a good thing. But you're right there's a risk it scares away non subs from trying as well - if thats true Classic would be a bust.


None of these ideas take the place of a demo period of 10 levels


Im not sure I understand. You're concerned about some parallel version of the free to play version of retail? If we take them at their word you'd need a sub to access classic.

You mean fear mongering is using tourists as an excuse for sharding.
There's still a lot of variables if it will even be needed.

I think that depends on the extent sharding is used. It also depends heavily on classic's replayability as a static server.
Waters uncharted at this point.
So no way to give definitives of exactly what's going to happen.
It might not even be needed. At all.

Im just using what ion and lore have said. https://old.reddit.com/r/classicwow/comments/9tuwwg/demo_sharding_megathread/.

But agree totally that theres much more to learn, and maybe it turns out sharding is the best option. I want to see a demo where we test the limits of a non-sharded server.
11/11/2018 06:43 PMPosted by Brokenwind
Stop, just stop it. You know damned well that by gifting classic to active subs they will eclipse the playerbase simply coming back for classic. Your pearl clutching about “doa” is absurd


Edit--If you read all of what I typed originally , great, have more faith in the returning players is a much better message from me, soo tired of all this honestly, jsut want to play and enjoy the game.
11/11/2018 09:31 AMPosted by Brokenwind
Disappointed in the decision to bundle the subs and (at least for now) not have a separate Classic sub option.

That said, can we at least get a separate box cost for access to classic?

It would:
- help alleviate temporary bloat and subsequent dead realms
- servers would be more stable population-wise over time
- remove the bulk of the need for sharding
- give a solid idea of how many servers will be needed
- allow blizzard to set up a separate classic forum for those with a monetary commitment
- with a separate forum group, feedback would be limited to those with a vested interest


The subs would still be bundled, but there would be a box cost, akin to what one would have to pay for BFA access.


1. I don't think a single-purchase "box cost" would accomplish the things you are talking about.

2. If you paid for BfA you've already paid for WoW and the first 6 expansions. Sure, many people have paid heavily-discounted bundled prices for them but nevertheless you've paid for it.

3. A singular purchase and combined subscription does not produce a sustained revenue stream to support the things you think it will support. It might give them a shot of money in the first quarter after release but that money isn't put into some sort of "lockbox" where it is spent only on Classic. It just goes into a temporary cash-flow spike and maybe gets invested in some development effort somewhere else. What you seem to want is more like an optional $5 increased surcharge for a subscription fee that enables Classic, but they've already said they won't do that.

11/11/2018 10:19 AMPosted by Baited
In that case you want Blizzard to offer Private Server Hosting Services. You rent space on their server and dictate who can join. Totally different thing. Doesn't exist, but I'm sure there are those who would give a left kidney for it.

I gotta admit, this sounds kinda awesome. I wouldn't give my left kidney for it, but I would spend some money on it if it were available. I wonder if Blizzard could make a mint off of doing something like this, or if demand for such a thing is lower than I think it is?
11/11/2018 05:40 PMPosted by Echota
11/11/2018 10:54 AMPosted by Bandajo
There are 3 groups:
1. Non-subs that will sub to play classic. (though they may later decide retail is best for them)
2. Current subs that will sub for longer because of classic.
3. Current subs whose sub length is unaffected by classic.




As as group 1 player, according to your paradigm, I can say that a box cost (in addition to a $15 sub) would be a definite deterrent to giving Classic a try. I played Jan. 2005 until early Cataclysm, and then intermittently during other expansions, but have felt no desire to play current WoW since my husband and I made our last foray mid-Legion. We've been considering whether we might want to play Classic, and would probably pay $15 for at least a month or two, longer if we're having fun, but inviting us to buy a second vanilla box (still have my original discs!) would make me a lot less willing to do so, even if the price were modest.

In short, I think that unless your purpose is to deter all less-than-fully-committed players from trying Classic, a box charge is a bad idea. It's not only current players who might give Classic a look that would be affected, but players who are not currently subbing, and for whom Classic would be the only reason to sub, as well.


Blizzard needs your original discs to copy their code plz send them to blizzard. but you are missing a giant part of classic. It's not vanilla - it's legion with vanilla xmog so it is a new game. They have every right to charge us again imo. Or should remasters be free too?
11/11/2018 07:57 PMPosted by Roflstar
11/11/2018 05:40 PMPosted by Echota
...


As as group 1 player, according to your paradigm, I can say that a box cost (in addition to a $15 sub) would be a definite deterrent to giving Classic a try. I played Jan. 2005 until early Cataclysm, and then intermittently during other expansions, but have felt no desire to play current WoW since my husband and I made our last foray mid-Legion. We've been considering whether we might want to play Classic, and would probably pay $15 for at least a month or two, longer if we're having fun, but inviting us to buy a second vanilla box (still have my original discs!) would make me a lot less willing to do so, even if the price were modest.

In short, I think that unless your purpose is to deter all less-than-fully-committed players from trying Classic, a box charge is a bad idea. It's not only current players who might give Classic a look that would be affected, but players who are not currently subbing, and for whom Classic would be the only reason to sub, as well.


Blizzard needs your original discs to copy their code plz send them to blizzard. but you are missing a giant part of classic. It's not vanilla - it's legion with vanilla xmog so it is a new game. They have every right to charge us again imo. Or should remasters be free too?[/quote]

I said that such a charge would deter me. I made no mention of Blizzard's rights. If I had the option of a lower-priced, Classic-only sub I might be more willing to pay a box fee. As it is, I'm inclined to feel that $15 per month is not only not "free," but a gracious plenty for game for which they will not be developing actual new content.

Blizzard has the right to charge whatever they wish. I have the right to decide what a product is worth to me and buy it or not based on that assessment.
11/11/2018 06:43 PMPosted by Brokenwind

Stop, just stop it. You know damned well that by gifting classic to active subs they will eclipse the playerbase simply coming back for classic. Your pearl clutching about “doa” is absurd. Blizzard and enablers like yourself created this upcoming issue with tourist bloat. Suddenly gasping and proclaiming that classic is “doomed” because you created a vast sea of free bloat that eclipses the passionate vanilla base is insultingly shallow. How shocking that the group getting it for free with their subs would flood the servers.


You have to ignore him, he believes tens of millions of players will return to classic....Even though Retail is believed to be down in the 4-5 million range. Pservers have about 30-40k active players. I even looked at some other old school MMOs, FF11 seems to be in the 40k range and EQ/EQ2 looks to be well under 20k combined.

There just isn't a demand for games like Classic, that is why most MMOs are super casual. I would consider 100k vanilla players returning to be very successful.

11/11/2018 07:25 PMPosted by Padrepwn
11/11/2018 07:07 PMPosted by Bandajo

You still dont get it. The issue with tourists is that they are being used as the excuse for sharding.

I dont know how successful Classic will be, but I think sharding is a significant risk to its success.

Do you even want to play Classic? From your post it sounds like you want it to fail.


You mean fear mongering is using tourists as an excuse for sharding.
There's still a lot of variables if it will even be needed.

I think that depends on the extent sharding is used. It also depends heavily on classic's replayability as a static server.
Waters uncharted at this point.
So no way to give definitives of exactly what's going to happen.
It might not even be needed. At all.

The exact opposite my dude. I want classic to succeed but blizz's main source for feedback(us) is being manipulated by fear, speculation, and hype.
Oh I want to play classic on blizz servers so much. You don't even know.


Sharding has nothing to do with tourism. Sharding has to do with server population. If they go with the vanilla server cap of 2500, it doesn't matter how many of those are tourists. At 2500 the starting zone is crowded for a few hours, after which everyone is spread out enough that it isn't needed. Moving into mega server territory this would change. On a 10k+ pserver zones were crowded several weeks, well past lv35.

The issue with tourism is the impact on server capacity. As stated above, retail has at least 4 million active players, and I would expect no more than 100k vanilla players returning or moving to Classic. If just 1/4 of retail players try out Classic, that will put 10 trials to every vanilla player. Half of those players quitting would be a devastating blow to the server population. And then you need to consider how many of those that stay are going to play Classic as their main. I have no problem with casuals, there are plenty of Vanilla players that play casually. But when you have players that only get on when they have nothing better to do on retail making up a large portion of our servers, it becomes a problem.
I was expecting an upfront cost, much like any expansion. I'm hoping for a Collector's Edition actually, lol.
11/11/2018 10:22 PMPosted by Skjaldbjorn
11/11/2018 06:43 PMPosted by Brokenwind

Stop, just stop it. You know damned well that by gifting classic to active subs they will eclipse the playerbase simply coming back for classic. Your pearl clutching about “doa” is absurd. Blizzard and enablers like yourself created this upcoming issue with tourist bloat. Suddenly gasping and proclaiming that classic is “doomed” because you created a vast sea of free bloat that eclipses the passionate vanilla base is insultingly shallow. How shocking that the group getting it for free with their subs would flood the servers.


You have to ignore him, he believes tens of millions of players will return to classic....Even though Retail is believed to be down in the 4-5 million range. Pservers have about 30-40k active players. I even looked at some other old school MMOs, FF11 seems to be in the 40k range and EQ/EQ2 looks to be well under 20k combined.

There just isn't a demand for games like Classic, that is why most MMOs are super casual. I would consider 100k vanilla players returning to be very successful.

11/11/2018 07:25 PMPosted by Padrepwn
...

You mean fear mongering is using tourists as an excuse for sharding.
There's still a lot of variables if it will even be needed.

I think that depends on the extent sharding is used. It also depends heavily on classic's replayability as a static server.
Waters uncharted at this point.
So no way to give definitives of exactly what's going to happen.
It might not even be needed. At all.

The exact opposite my dude. I want classic to succeed but blizz's main source for feedback(us) is being manipulated by fear, speculation, and hype.
Oh I want to play classic on blizz servers so much. You don't even know.


Sharding has nothing to do with tourism. Sharding has to do with server population. If they go with the vanilla server cap of 2500, it doesn't matter how many of those are tourists. At 2500 the starting zone is crowded for a few hours, after which everyone is spread out enough that it isn't needed. Moving into mega server territory this would change. On a 10k+ pserver zones were crowded several weeks, well past lv35.

The issue with tourism is the impact on server capacity. As stated above, retail has at least 4 million active players, and I would expect no more than 100k vanilla players returning or moving to Classic. If just 1/4 of retail players try out Classic, that will put 10 trials to every vanilla player. Half of those players quitting would be a devastating blow to the server population. And then you need to consider how many of those that stay are going to play Classic as their main. I have no problem with casuals, there are plenty of Vanilla players that play casually. But when you have players that only get on when they have nothing better to do on retail making up a large portion of our servers, it becomes a problem.


Retail players in their casual play on the classic server will be the only influx of players, that are at different stages in the game, that the server(s) are going to get. There will be no new players like when the game was originally released, even to the point you had more players joining than leaving for about 5-6 years.

So retail casuals will be it.
So, to clarify, you're suggesting players buy Classic like WoW originally, and every subsequent expac, in addition to a standard subscription?

If that's the case, then you're banking on, all of this:

It would:
- help alleviate temporary bloat and subsequent dead realms
- servers would be more stable population-wise over time
- remove the bulk of the need for sharding
- give a solid idea of how many servers will be needed
- allow blizzard to set up a separate classic forum for those with a monetary commitment
- with a separate forum group, feedback would be limited to those with a vested interest


Happening due to a pay-wall. I think that's a bit of a stretch. Now, I believe that an initial pay-wall to access the game, in addition to a subscription, can deter players from getting the game, but I believe that amount would actually be quite negligible that these measures would, essentially, be pointless.

Every time a new expac comes out, Blizzard makes an easy windfall on initial sales. For example, BFA evidently sold around 3.4M copies. Now, with how dedicated the Classic community is, and with how much they specifically want this version of the game, I think it is an underestimation to expect enough Classic community players to pass on it because of a purchase fee in addition to a subscription.

Consider that Classic players are niche enough to be committed to this version of the game, but not niche enough that an initial access pay-wall would deter enough players to effect the results that are being suggested above. Classic players also know, more-or-less, what content they will be getting, and it is content that they want very much -- content they've been wanting for years. Compare that to modern retail where players go into new expacs not knowing what content they will experience, and after awhile, they tend to dwindle in numbers, but they still meet expac launches with millions of players.

So, if modern retail can get millions on launch, and decrease in subscriptions later (depsite these players paying full price at launch in addition to subscriptions), I see little reason to suspect that a pay-wall like an expac for Classic would deter enough players at launch to do what you're saying it will. After all, the Classic community has been wanting and advocating for this game for years.
11/11/2018 10:22 PMPosted by Skjaldbjorn
11/11/2018 06:43 PMPosted by Brokenwind

Stop, just stop it. You know damned well that by gifting classic to active subs they will eclipse the playerbase simply coming back for classic. Your pearl clutching about “doa” is absurd. Blizzard and enablers like yourself created this upcoming issue with tourist bloat. Suddenly gasping and proclaiming that classic is “doomed” because you created a vast sea of free bloat that eclipses the passionate vanilla base is insultingly shallow. How shocking that the group getting it for free with their subs would flood the servers.


You have to ignore him, he believes tens of millions of players will return to classic....Even though Retail is believed to be down in the 4-5 million range. Pservers have about 30-40k active players. I even looked at some other old school MMOs, FF11 seems to be in the 40k range and EQ/EQ2 looks to be well under 20k combined.

There just isn't a demand for games like Classic, that is why most MMOs are super casual. I would consider 100k vanilla players returning to be very successful.

11/11/2018 07:25 PMPosted by Padrepwn
...

You mean fear mongering is using tourists as an excuse for sharding.
There's still a lot of variables if it will even be needed.

I think that depends on the extent sharding is used. It also depends heavily on classic's replayability as a static server.
Waters uncharted at this point.
So no way to give definitives of exactly what's going to happen.
It might not even be needed. At all.

The exact opposite my dude. I want classic to succeed but blizz's main source for feedback(us) is being manipulated by fear, speculation, and hype.
Oh I want to play classic on blizz servers so much. You don't even know.


Sharding has nothing to do with tourism. Sharding has to do with server population. If they go with the vanilla server cap of 2500, it doesn't matter how many of those are tourists. At 2500 the starting zone is crowded for a few hours, after which everyone is spread out enough that it isn't needed. Moving into mega server territory this would change. On a 10k+ pserver zones were crowded several weeks, well past lv35.

The issue with tourism is the impact on server capacity. As stated above, retail has at least 4 million active players, and I would expect no more than 100k vanilla players returning or moving to Classic. If just 1/4 of retail players try out Classic, that will put 10 trials to every vanilla player. Half of those players quitting would be a devastating blow to the server population. And then you need to consider how many of those that stay are going to play Classic as their main. I have no problem with casuals, there are plenty of Vanilla players that play casually. But when you have players that only get on when they have nothing better to do on retail making up a large portion of our servers, it becomes a problem.


Like i said, if youre going to refer to me, try not making things up, i never said that many are coming back, just that they are the largest player source, one you ignore to push your biased narrative of retail just waiting to swarm the servers in the largest numbers of any group.

It just floors me to see someone who claims to be pro Classic think it will be such a massive failure, though it is also funny to see someone else finally understanding the WA sub number tweet was debunked.
Idk, if paying for Classic gives me access to BFA, then how can that be a bad thing?
11/12/2018 02:17 AMPosted by Ishandas
Idk, if paying for Classic gives me access to BFA, then how can that be a bad thing?


It doesnt, you get rhe base game with a sub now, still would have to buy Bfa.
11/12/2018 02:17 AMPosted by Ishandas
Idk, if paying for Classic gives me access to BFA, then how can that be a bad thing?


That is the irony of many arguments here. To play the 10 levels of bfa you have to pay a box cost. For the 60 levels of classic content, in fact a completely different gameplay, content and client, there is yet to be announced any box cost.
[quote="207682113049"]That is the irony of many arguments here. To play the 10 levels of bfa you have to pay a box cost. For the 60 levels of classic content, in fact a completely different gameplay, content and client, there is yet to be announced any box cost.

But didn't we all already buy vanilla wow back in 2004/2005? It would be really awkward to ask everyone to buy it a second time, don't you think?
If I remember correctly, I already purchased base World of Warcraft 14 years ago :thinking:

Why should I have to pay twice for something I’ve owned for 14 years?

I shouldn’t: that’s the correct answer.
11/12/2018 06:43 AMPosted by Female
If I remember correctly, I already purchased base World of Warcraft 14 years ago :thinking:

Why should I have to pay twice for something I’ve owned for 14 years?

I shouldn’t: that’s the correct answer.


But OP believes you may not have the exact same belief system as him and as a result he wants barriers to your access.
11/12/2018 06:15 AMPosted by Brokenwind
11/12/2018 02:17 AMPosted by Ishandas
Idk, if paying for Classic gives me access to BFA, then how can that be a bad thing?


That is the irony of many arguments here. To play the 10 levels of bfa you have to pay a box cost. For the 60 levels of classic content, in fact a completely different gameplay, content and client, there is yet to be announced any box cost.

From what I can tell it's not a different client, but rather a special type of zoning and skin on the same server client (depending on what you mean by "client").

The content from 1-60 is not that different, the gameplay is similar but the tuning is different.

It's not as different as you are making it out to be. It will certainly feel different, but the post-7.3.5 felt quite different from pre-7.3.5 without it actually being considered an expansion kind of difference.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum