Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

WoW Annual Pass Subscribers Get Diablo III for Free

Last response: in News comments
Share
October 22, 2011 10:11:55 AM

I'm so in.
October 22, 2011 10:22:37 AM

I mean, just when I thought Blizzard was gonna lose its ground, they come up with stuff like this, It's a genius move, you pay the one year subscription fee, alright... It's quite some money, but if you're into WoW, you probably would anyway, specially now with 4.3 coming up you get to kill Death Wing while you grind up for the new expansion, expansion which, you already know what's it gonna be about, so, either you like it and go ahead with it, or you don't like what you're seeing and just don't, is take it or live it, but in case you are interested on the new expansion, with all the new stuff including the "Pokemon" fights, and if you were already planning on getting Diablo, which I am, you save up huge money, let's face it, I was going to pay 60 euros for Diablo, and each time I buy a 60 day subscription card, I pay 26 euros, I probably would pay 6 months of play during a year, which would cost me effectively, 78 that sums up 138€, which is already 18 euros more than I'd pay for the yearly subscription, plus you get an awesome mount, not excluding that you can play WoW a full year, other than you would paying for the 6 months. It's win win win win for me, and very tempting to a whole lot of people. With Star Wars: The Old Republic coming up, and Guild Wars pressing forward its release, this is a really bold move from blizzard, they're all IN, it's take it or leave it I guess. I like how they don't discriminate between their own games, they really just want you to be in the Blizzard "side" of gaming, as long as you're going blizz, they don't really care what you're playing as long as you're paying for their services and stick to their products, a lot of synergy here.
Related resources
October 22, 2011 11:31:13 AM

tied in to 12 month contract,

release utter rubbish

Blizzard : /Trollface

From a business perspective. I think if blizzard made all their games pay for, for half the curernt wow cost, and made the sub for all of the games. That'd be an interesting propasition, possibly more lucrative.

Combined with this idea, that a 1 year sub (loyalty) will be rewarded.

I don't like the idea of loyalty to an aged and run to the ground game however, but i don't mind being loyal to a great development house.
October 22, 2011 12:34:46 PM

I have that tab open for it.. I just quit in july, I'm really unsure if i want be tied to it for that long, but the bonus's to it make seem like a great deal. I will have to think about this. Looks good though.
October 22, 2011 2:12:52 PM

From what I understood by reading the stipulations, you would have to complete the year before getting the copy of Diablo 3. If so, then I think they are just hoping that people will accept the agreement & then get too impatient to wait a year & buy Diablo 3 anyways. Big Win-Win for Blizzard there. I could easily be wrong though, may have misunderstood.
October 22, 2011 2:37:21 PM

well, that's one way to keep squeezing money out of people.
October 22, 2011 3:01:03 PM

Star72, read it again. "You'll be able to download and play Diablo III as soon as it's available and once you complete the one-year term, it's yours to keep, even if you cancel your subscription. Tyrael's Charger will be available with Patch 4.3, and beta access will go live with the beta launch."
October 22, 2011 3:02:37 PM

As far as pricing goes, if you count DIII's retail price ($60) and the year discount for the sub, its like getting 12 months for wow for 6 months worth pay.
October 22, 2011 3:03:51 PM

They just need to retire WoW and come out with WoW II that lets users with "Modern" hardware that does not belong in a crypt for Indian Jones to find and be put in a museum.
October 22, 2011 4:23:01 PM

So Diablo 3 sux that much?! Or WoW sux? Or maybe they both sux.
October 22, 2011 4:33:37 PM

vilenjanStar72, read it again. "You'll be able to download and play Diablo III as soon as it's available and once you complete the one-year term, it's yours to keep, even if you cancel your subscription. Tyrael's Charger will be available with Patch 4.3, and beta access will go live with the beta launch."

Yeah the part that I saw stand out was "once you complete the one-year term, it's yours to keep even if you cancel your subscription." So complete your 1 year agreement & THEN you get Diablo 3???
October 22, 2011 4:38:22 PM

Ok, I get their whole point now. My bad for misunderstanding. Play immediately but don't get to keep the game unless you complete the year. Just a mis-understanding of the wording, sorry about that.
October 22, 2011 5:16:58 PM

How bad are the WoW subscriber numbers going to be for the third quarter shareholder conference call for them to be doing this promotion?

Stop and think about this. If they thought WoW was in a healthy place, they would not be willing to eat D3 sale profits to prop it up. If you look at this promotion, it's to keep existing sibscribers from leaving, it doesn't even go toward new customers. You have to had a registered WoW accoubt by October 18th, 3 days BEFORE this announcement was made. This seems obvious that the sub losses they have had during the year of releasing new content for Cataclysm has been bad and they want to try their best to not let the slide continue during the year leading up to Mists of Pandaria.

Perhaps Blizzard would be better of trying to salvage WoW by actually IMPROVING the game and offering real content updates instead of promotions like this. They already said 4.3 will be the last raid content for Cataclysm, and the pretty much means there won't be anything in terms of patches until the 5.0 pre expansion patch.

Just sort of sad for people who really liked Warcraft to see what mess they have let the title get in to.
October 22, 2011 5:39:44 PM

*sigh* Blizzard when will you stop listening to Activihack?
October 22, 2011 6:31:12 PM

Star72Yeah the part that I saw stand out was "once you complete the one-year term, it's yours to keep even if you cancel your subscription." So complete your 1 year agreement & THEN you get Diablo 3???


No, you get it at release, but if you cancel the one-year WoW subscription before one year is up then you don't get to keep your access to Diablo 3. This prevents people from signing up for the year pass, then getting Diablo 3, then cancelling their WoW sub. Though I'm not sure how'd they save money if it locks you in for a year...but hey, Blizzard is just watching their backs.

Seriously bro, it isn't that complicated, you're trying to make it like Blizzard is false advertising when they aren't.
October 22, 2011 6:48:53 PM

droking*sigh* Blizzard when will you stop listening to Activihack?

Eh they're listening to investors and shareholders, which is what every public company on the planet does. Can't blame them.

I don't see how this is a bad thing really. For those who play WoW religiously, you get a free D3. For those who don't, you're still most likely going to buy D3 like you always have planned to.

And yes, obviously they're trying to boost WoW subscription numbers. But, lets be honest here: WoW is FAR from dying. Even now they have at least 6-8 times more subscribers than any other MMO on the market. Is the glory days of WoW over? Yes, most likely, but it is still a hugely popular game.
October 22, 2011 7:59:33 PM

I don't understand why those stupid companies listen to investors and shareholders when it should only be the customers who buy their damn products. =/
October 22, 2011 8:16:48 PM

I dont see how this is a big deal. You aren't forced to pay for a wow sub to get DIII. You can always just pay $60 and get the standalone game. This is for WoW players would play both, or at the very least cancel their sub while they played DIII. This way you keep your wow sub and get DIII free.

So if you dont care about WoW, you shouldn't be posting anything. This deal is for WoW players who want DIII as well.
October 22, 2011 9:38:09 PM

drokingI don't understand why those stupid companies listen to investors and shareholders when it should only be the customers who buy their damn products. =/


Because your opinions and desires do not matter in the end if you are going to end up paying for the product/service regardless. This is the real reason why healthcare in America costs way more due to lack of regulation and the fact that you are going to choose to get treated if anything severe happens to you. They know this and therefor charge extreme amounts and the quality of healthcare itself tends to be sub-par for most.

They know that these games are going to rake in extreme amounts, they know even that gamers tend to be extremely weak willed when it comes to resisting buying a big name title. Just look at what happened to the MW2 boycott for the PC, the vast majority that boycotted bought it anyways despite not being able to get a single on of their demands met.

If you truly want video games to get better and the business practices involving them to improve then you have to stop buying them when they fail to meet your expectations or when the company does something shady like sue a indie developer because they were going to use a commonly used word in their game's title.
October 22, 2011 9:47:14 PM

lost interest in WOW after Cataclysm came out. Just so many changes contantly. If they ever came out witha Vanilla WoW server I would come back again maybe but not for some stupid panda expansion. I will just buy D3 later
October 22, 2011 10:10:49 PM

So basically you get to play two games for the price of one. Very smart...
October 23, 2011 12:18:47 AM

It is crap like this that people have been turning to private servers in droves. From both sides many long time retail players looking for something that isn't retarded and noobies who don't want to pony up the cash for something that sucks. There are plenty of Vanilla and TBC servers out there as well WOTLK.
October 23, 2011 1:08:24 AM

laxduck26No, you get it at release, but if you cancel the one-year WoW subscription before one year is up then you don't get to keep your access to Diablo 3. This prevents people from signing up for the year pass, then getting Diablo 3, then cancelling their WoW sub. Though I'm not sure how'd they save money if it locks you in for a year...but hey, Blizzard is just watching their backs. Seriously bro, it isn't that complicated, you're trying to make it like Blizzard is false advertising when they aren't.


Yeah I already corrected myself, but thanks.
October 23, 2011 3:37:03 AM

The thing for me is, I sign up for longer contracts for price breaks, not freebies, and there is no price break for committing a year to WoW here.

Getting Diablo 3 for no added cost is a great thing for a lot of people, but I have more than one WoW account so a price break on a year-long contract would be worth more to me. (I already take advantage of the 6-month pay plan, it would have to be better than that.) I mean, if I were hot for Diablo 3 it would be different, but I'm not.

As for the new Xpak - I was against the Panda thing at first, but I've pretty much come around (Multi-boxing 5 Pandas just sounds too cool to me, hehe.) The Monk class looks good, and the WoW devs do classes well.

;) 
October 23, 2011 8:18:17 AM

I haven't read thru all of your comments, but I feel the real reason for this "deal" is the anticipation of the account cancellations due to this games launch. People won't want to pay for WoW while there playing Diablo. They will both be huge time hogs & there wont be a point in trying to play both when one is free after you buy it. They are trying to get that money up front & get you committed to diablo.
October 23, 2011 11:20:39 AM

wow is dying , and yes diablo 3 is going to help kill it some more :)  cataclysm was a bust firelands more so :D 
October 23, 2011 7:38:20 PM

Free in a monetary sense. But at what cost to your soul!?
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
October 23, 2011 10:00:33 PM

As a member of our first MMO, feel free to try our other one!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
October 24, 2011 1:32:47 AM

my wow subscription is ending december 18th. star wars mmo is being released december 20th. december 19th will be the most awkward day of my life. having to *shudder* go outside of my bedroom.

the next expansion looks like shit anyway. i'll wait to see the reviews on diablo III and buy it by itself.

oh and one more thing... boobs. loool. boobs are awesome.
October 24, 2011 11:42:56 AM

I don't play wow anymore after 7 long years of playing, so it wouldn't matter to me anyways, but I'd much rather pay the $50 for Diablo 3, rather than pay almost $180 out for WoW, when I don't even know if I'd play it for that much longer when getting into the contract. It's far more fiscally responsible just to pay for D3.
October 24, 2011 1:10:25 PM

billybobsertied in to 12 month contract,release utter rubbishBlizzard : /TrollfaceFrom a business perspective. I think if blizzard made all their games pay for, for half the curernt wow cost, and made the sub for all of the games. That'd be an interesting propasition, possibly more lucrative.Combined with this idea, that a 1 year sub (loyalty) will be rewarded. I don't like the idea of loyalty to an aged and run to the ground game however, but i don't mind being loyal to a great development house.


No one is forcing you, wtf, lol.
October 24, 2011 1:12:43 PM

One way to boost the numbers for a draconian DRM game with no LAN support.
October 24, 2011 1:15:42 PM

I like Blizzard's games, and they're usually worth the price, but their need to squeeze money out of their players is really starting to wear me out as a fan. I've given them hundreds of dollars for Warcraft III, my WoW subscription when I was playing, and Starcraft II combined over the years. Throw me a bone here!

Plus, when the new expansion comes out, even if you pay the yearly subscription cost you still have to buy it to add it to your account.
October 24, 2011 2:44:00 PM

If you take the time to read their FAQ, you would see that you can continue on with any plan you currently have, be it yearly or 6 months and your remaining time will count towards your 12 month commitment. You still get the discount from WOW depending on which plan you have selected.

This is probably being done for accounting reasons to bolster this quarters profits. By people committing to a year they are able to put the profits on this quarters books, instead of being spread out. With SC2 expansion and D3 expansion coming out over the next 2 quarters the books will look pretty decent.
October 24, 2011 6:26:44 PM

reggierayOne way to boost the numbers for a draconian DRM game with no LAN support.

Actually I don't think this is to boost D3, I think this is to stem the tide of defections from WoW.

Keep in mind, 4.3 will be released in a couple of months, likely the same time Star Wars is released. Blizzard has already said that's the last raid for Cataclysm so in terms of new content, there won't be any until Mists of Pandaria is released. If WoW lost 900,000 (plus however many during the past 3rd quarter whose numbers haven't been announced yet) during a time where new content is being released, no matter how slowly, just how bad do they must think a year with no new content will drive away people.

Keep in mind this isn't even a new customer promotion. To be elgible for it you must have had a copy of WoW registered by October 18th, 3 days BEFORE it was announced. Only those current active and inactive subscribers can take advantage of it. Odds are these were people who for the most part were going to be buying D3 anyway.
October 24, 2011 8:05:24 PM

I'm barely gonna have time to play Diablo 3... so I'll pass on this offer.
(I work 7 days a week, 64hrs a week total, every week. X-Mas, New Years every single holiday unless I request it off and find someone to fill in.)

So what would possibly be open on those days?
Hospital...
October 24, 2011 8:42:39 PM

In my opinion, the problem is that Blizzard charges you a monthly amount (or three months, or 6 months) for content and server usage (aka, your subscription), and then Blizzard wants to charge you AGAI?N for content in the form of "expansion packs".

Think about this, Blizzard: I stopped playing WOW around a year ago and I refused to purchase an "expansion pack" which should have been included with my monthly subscription to begin with, and I will continue to do so until the "expansion pack" is free simply because I feel that the monthly subscription covers new content. SO, because of Blizzard's greed, Blizzard wants to charge $50 for an "expansion pack", and in doing so Blizzard has forfeited the $180 in monthly subscription revenue that Blizzard would have received from me. So, because Blizzard wants to charge $50 for something that should be INCLUDED with the monthly subscription, Blizzard has LOST $130 PER CUSTOMER. Genius!!!

Really, at this point I probably wouldn't even restart my subscription even if the "expansion pack" was free because I am way too far behind everyone else and the fact that Star Wars: TOR will come out in a few months anyway.

In addition, how can you expect a new player to buy all of the "expansion packs" just so they can play with their friends? And if new players aren't coming in to play with their friends your attrition rate will massively overpower the rate of incoming new players. In my opinion, whoever came up with the idea of charging $50 for something that should be included in the monthly subscription should be fired. Totally brain dead idea. You should only charge for the cost of distributing the media, and if the customer downloads the "expansion pack" there should be no charge.

So hey, have fun with your massive attrition. Your own brain-dead policies are to blame. Rather than thinking about the long term you trapped yourself into the short term, and now you are reaping what you sowed.
October 24, 2011 10:50:46 PM

nrgxIn my opinion, the problem is that Blizzard charges you a monthly amount (or three months, or 6 months) for content and server usage (aka, your subscription), and then Blizzard wants to charge you AGAI?N for content in the form of "expansion packs".Think about this, Blizzard: I stopped playing WOW around a year ago and I refused to purchase an "expansion pack" which should have been included with my monthly subscription to begin with, and I will continue to do so until the "expansion pack" is free simply because I feel that the monthly subscription covers new content. SO, because of Blizzard's greed, Blizzard wants to charge $50 for an "expansion pack", and in doing so Blizzard has forfeited the $180 in monthly subscription revenue that Blizzard would have received from me. So, because Blizzard wants to charge $50 for something that should be INCLUDED with the monthly subscription, Blizzard has LOST $130 PER CUSTOMER. Genius!!!Really, at this point I probably wouldn't even restart my subscription even if the "expansion pack" was free because I am way too far behind everyone else and the fact that Star Wars: TOR will come out in a few months anyway.In addition, how can you expect a new player to buy all of the "expansion packs" just so they can play with their friends? And if new players aren't coming in to play with their friends your attrition rate will massively overpower the rate of incoming new players. In my opinion, whoever came up with the idea of charging $50 for something that should be included in the monthly subscription should be fired. Totally brain dead idea. You should only charge for the cost of distributing the media, and if the customer downloads the "expansion pack" there should be no charge.So hey, have fun with your massive attrition. Your own brain-dead policies are to blame. Rather than thinking about the long term you trapped yourself into the short term, and now you are reaping what you sowed.

For all the problems I have with Blizzard since Bobby Kotick was made CEO of Activision Blizzard, charging for an expansion is not one of them.

I don't know of any game that does not sell their expansion packs. as a matter of fact EQ would sell any content update as an expansion. In other words Firelands which was free content in WoW, would have been a paid expansion pack to EQ. Blizzard only sells an expansion when major massive changes are made to move the game substantially forward.

As for pricing, I have heard these arguments way to many times on the WoW forums. Right now you get vanilla AND BC for $20. Wrath you can find easily for $20 and Cataclysm is $40. That's a total of $80. One single console game is $60, and most of them will want you to buy DLC to finish off the game. So please explain how $80 is too much money for many more times content available than a $50 PC game or a $60 console game?

The fact you exagerate the cost of the expansion, it's never been $50 unless you buy the collector's edition, and if you're buying that the price isn't something you will complain about, shows me you know your position is tenuous at best.

So you complain Blizz is doing something that every other subscription based game does, and Blizz even gives more for their expansion, yet you single them out on it.

For all the things that can legitimately be complained about with Blizzard, selling their products isn't one.
October 25, 2011 3:03:04 AM

wildkitten said:
For all the problems I have with Blizzard since Bobby Kotick was made CEO of Activision Blizzard, charging for an expansion is not one of them.

I don't know of any game that does not sell their expansion packs. as a matter of fact EQ would sell any content update as an expansion. In other words Firelands which was free content in WoW, would have been a paid expansion pack to EQ. Blizzard only sells an expansion when major massive changes are made to move the game substantially forward.

As for pricing, I have heard these arguments way to many times on the WoW forums. Right now you get vanilla AND BC for $20. Wrath you can find easily for $20 and Cataclysm is $40. That's a total of $80. One single console game is $60, and most of them will want you to buy DLC to finish off the game. So please explain how $80 is too much money for many more times content available than a $50 PC game or a $60 console game?

The fact you exagerate the cost of the expansion, it's never been $50 unless you buy the collector's edition, and if you're buying that the price isn't something you will complain about, shows me you know your position is tenuous at best.

So you complain Blizz is doing something that every other subscription based game does, and Blizz even gives more for their expansion, yet you single them out on it.

For all the things that can legitimately be complained about with Blizzard, selling their products isn't one.

For a single example of a MMO that does not turn content which is included in the subscription into an "expansion pack", go check out Eve online. For Eve online you simply pay your monthly subscription and there are no "expansion packs". I suspect there are more, such as Lord of the Rings Online, where if you pay your monthly subscription you are a VIP and content is included but I am not 100% sure since I don't play LOTRO.

Firelands is not free content because it was paid for by the $15/month subscription.

I think the major disagreement we have is that you believe that the $15/month subscribers pay does not include content and I believe that the $15/month does include content. I really don't see how I can convince you differently and there is no way you will be able to convince me differently.

If I were to buy the "expansion pack" as soon as it comes out the cost before tax would be $49.99. I don't think $0.01 is an exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination. You are correct that the cost now, after a year of the "expansion pack" being out, is $40. Actually, checking the price just now I see it is down to around $35 on newegg. Still too much.

As far as pricing for WOW and the "expansion packs", let's say it is $80 even though I see the price for WOTLK at $36 on newegg and not $20. Why would a new user want to pay for content that the new user doesn't want to play or in the case of vanilla content can't play? I don't think there are many people trying to raid ANY of the instances except for the cata instances, so it isn't like they can play the content except for completing quests or grinding out XP by killing stuff. And I think you are exaggerating when you estimate the content you are forced to pay for twice when you buy an "expansion pack". I dont' think doing "dailies" to grind rep is really content after you do it once. You can't get multiple credit for doing a daily just because you are forced to do the daily every day, like chores, to grind rep for something you need to raid with.

I really don't see how you can possibly compare a generic $60 game to WOW. Does a generic $60 game come with a $15/month subscription plan such that you can't play the game unless you pay the $15/month?

I agree, no one should complain about a company trying to sell their product. My beef with Blizzard is that they are trying to charge me for content TWICE.

In any case, the price for a product is determined by what people will pay for it. The fact that so many people bought cata means that either there are a lot of suckers out there or it was a fair price. Even if it was a fair price, Blizzard has still backed themselves into a corner with their pricing strategy and they are feeling the pinch of it now with massive attrition and very few new players. In my opinion, the reason for this was due to short term revenue goals instead of looking at the big picture over the long term.
October 25, 2011 3:38:48 AM

nrgxFor a single example of a MMO that does not turn content which is included in the subscription into an "expansion pack", go check out Eve online. For Eve online you simply pay your monthly subscription and there are no "expansion packs". I suspect there are more, such as Lord of the Rings Online, where if you pay your monthly subscription you are a VIP and content is included but I am not 100% sure since I don't play LOTRO.Firelands is not free content because it was paid for by the $15/month subscription.I think the major disagreement we have is that you believe that the $15/month subscribers pay does not include content and I believe that the $15/month does include content. I really don't see how I can convince you differently and there is no way you will be able to convince me differently.If I were to buy the "expansion pack" as soon as it comes out the cost before tax would be $49.99. I don't think $0.01 is an exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination. You are correct that the cost now, after a year of the "expansion pack" being out, is $40. Actually, checking the price just now I see it is down to around $35 on newegg. Still too much.As far as pricing for WOW and the "expansion packs", let's say it is $80 even though I see the price for WOTLK at $36 on newegg and not $20. Why would a new user want to pay for content that the new user doesn't want to play or in the case of vanilla content can't play? I don't think there are many people trying to raid ANY of the instances except for the cata instances, so it isn't like they can play the content except for completing quests or grinding out XP by killing stuff. And I think you are exaggerating when you estimate the content you are forced to pay for twice when you buy an "expansion pack". I dont' think doing "dailies" to grind rep is really content after you do it once. You can't get multiple credit for doing a daily just because you are forced to do the daily every day, like chores, to grind rep for something you need to raid with.I really don't see how you can possibly compare a generic $60 game to WOW. Does a generic $60 game come with a $15/month subscription plan such that you can't play the game unless you pay the $15/month?I agree, no one should complain about a company trying to sell their product. My beef with Blizzard is that they are trying to charge me for content TWICE.In any case, the price for a product is determined by what people will pay for it. The fact that so many people bought cata means that either there are a lot of suckers out there or it was a fair price. Even if it was a fair price, Blizzard has still backed themselves into a corner with their pricing strategy and they are feeling the pinch of it now with massive attrition and very few new players. In my opinion, the reason for this was due to short term revenue goals instead of looking at the big picture over the long term.

Actually Lord of the Rings Online DOES sell expansions. Mines or Moria and at least one other. Rift also is bringing out an expansion. EQ, both 1 and 2 have had paid expansions. Age of Conan as well.

Fact is you're railing against Blizzard for doing something that is an industry standard. Ok, maybe EVE Online doesn't do it, but I don't see people storming to EVE wanting to play it either. I have a feeling if their subscriber base was larger than 350,000, their expansions would be paid as well.

And where do you get this $49.99? It was $39.99 for the normal version new, with some places offering expansions when new for $29.99. But you're original claim was that it was super expensive for a new player. So let's look up some facts on that...

Vanilla and BC are now bundled (ie, BC is free)
http://www.amazon.com/World-Warcraft-Mac/dp/B000067FDW that's $19.99

Wrath of the Lich King
http://www.gamestop.com/games/world-of-warcraft-wrath-o... still for some reason at the new price of $39.99

Cataclysm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002I0HKIU/ref=pd_lpo_... new for $29.99

So all told, a new player is looking at $90.00 to get into the game. A typical console game is $60 for less playable content, and usually need to spend $20-$30 on DLC. A PC game is $50 with about the same amount for DLC. I spent about the same on Dragon Age as I did on WoW and get a LOT less time played. I left WoW for other reasons than cost. Not to mention Blizzard has run sales in the past at least twice where you could get vanilla, BC and Wrath each for only $5. That's $45 for EVERYTHING if someone uses the sale.

And you claim that someone won't play some content? If they don't want to experience the game, why buy it? Are you claiming potential buyers are inherently stupid?

And your comparison to a generic game is silly. Does a generic, single player, local game, require constant internet and network maintenance as well as a large GM staff to help players? No, they don't.

As for feeling the pinch now with few new players, that has more to do with the fact that they havent bothered to seriously upgrade the game such as graphics and such. The amount of current players they are losing has to do more with them betraying the long term Warcraft fan.

But to complain about Blizzard doing what is standard when it comes to expansions is just plain dumb.
October 25, 2011 1:20:34 PM

Well, i have to say, i just started playing Cata content, and im not terribly impressed. I mean, everything is under water, and all the portals in Dal are gone...really? studpid! Now, that being said, its the same game. You go around and kill stuff, and raids are the same...you go in with a terrible tank/healer combo with OP dps'ers, and try not to wipe. The free Diablo III coming out looks "OK" at best, but even this looks like its taking a nasty left turn from Diablo II. I think they are trying to milk every scent out of these games as a last resort to making a killing of their now "expendable" client base. Their CEO is a real asshole.
October 26, 2011 4:38:58 AM

wildkitten said:
Actually Lord of the Rings Online DOES sell expansions. Mines or Moria and at least one other. Rift also is bringing out an expansion. EQ, both 1 and 2 have had paid expansions. Age of Conan as well.

Fact is you're railing against Blizzard for doing something that is an industry standard. Ok, maybe EVE Online doesn't do it, but I don't see people storming to EVE wanting to play it either. I have a feeling if their subscriber base was larger than 350,000, their expansions would be paid as well.

And where do you get this $49.99? It was $39.99 for the normal version new, with some places offering expansions when new for $29.99. But you're original claim was that it was super expensive for a new player. So let's look up some facts on that...

Vanilla and BC are now bundled (ie, BC is free)
http://www.amazon.com/World-Warcraft-Mac/dp/B000067FDW that's $19.99

Wrath of the Lich King
http://www.gamestop.com/games/world-of-warcraft-wrath-o... still for some reason at the new price of $39.99

Cataclysm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002I0HKIU/ref=pd_lpo_... new for $29.99

So all told, a new player is looking at $90.00 to get into the game. A typical console game is $60 for less playable content, and usually need to spend $20-$30 on DLC. A PC game is $50 with about the same amount for DLC. I spent about the same on Dragon Age as I did on WoW and get a LOT less time played. I left WoW for other reasons than cost. Not to mention Blizzard has run sales in the past at least twice where you could get vanilla, BC and Wrath each for only $5. That's $45 for EVERYTHING if someone uses the sale.

And you claim that someone won't play some content? If they don't want to experience the game, why buy it? Are you claiming potential buyers are inherently stupid?

And your comparison to a generic game is silly. Does a generic, single player, local game, require constant internet and network maintenance as well as a large GM staff to help players? No, they don't.

As for feeling the pinch now with few new players, that has more to do with the fact that they havent bothered to seriously upgrade the game such as graphics and such. The amount of current players they are losing has to do more with them betraying the long term Warcraft fan.

But to complain about Blizzard doing what is standard when it comes to expansions is just plain dumb.

Excuse me, but didn't you say "So you complain Blizz is doing something that every other subscription based game does"? I have shown at least one example where what you said is false. Eve is a subscription based game. You were obviously incorrect. Get over it.

I didn't buy cata so I have no proof of what cata cost almost a year ago. I do recall buying WOTLK and it costing $49.99 and I assumed cata would cost the same. I recall paying $55 and change with tax included.

Wow, $45 for everything? That price is reasonable. I wonder why I never saw that sale. I didn't even see it advertised in the host of comercials I saw for WOW. I would think that Blizzard would want new users to know about this sale if they wanted to increase new users, so I guess Blizzard is just stupid for not advertising it or something. Strange.

I am not saying that a new user would not play the content, I am saying that a new user CAN'T play the content, except for cata content. The only content a new user can play are the quests. A new user can't go to group finder and say "hey, I want to find a group for wailing caverns" (assuming wailing caverns even exists now) and hope to get a group in a reasonable period of time because there aren't enough users wanting to play through wailing caverns. Indeed, some of the instances do not even exist anymore with cata coming out, or even with WOTLK coming out (can't play classic ony after WOTLK). Or perhaps you think that a new user can solo an instance which was meant for 5 players or more? Or do you think that a new player would gain as much enjoyment of playing all content by soloing said content when their level is high enough? I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't get as much enjoyment soloing 5 person instances as I would have gotten with actually playing with 4 other persons.

I believe you were the one who was trying to compare a generic game to WOW, not me, so I agree, the comparison is in fact silly. You can't compare the two. That is my entire point. It doesn't matter what you get for the $15/month. The point is that in one case there is an ongoing $15/month and in the other case there is not. I am glad that you at least agree on this point.

The fact of the matter is, not only are new users more rare but the high startup costs keep multiple accounts down as well. I myself had two accounts and I would have gotten a third account except that the startup cost was too high and the cost of the "Expansion packs" multiplied by the number of accounts was too high. The fact remains that Blizzard forfeited $180 per account just because Blizzard wanted to charge $50 per account for an expansion pack (ok, maybe it was $40, I can't prove that it was actually $50 a year ago). That is a loss of $130 (ok, if it was $40 it is a loss of $140 which makes Blizzard even dumber. Thanks for helping me out by showing that blizzard is even dumber than what I previously thought.).

I agree that not upgrading the graphics etc. might have something to do with their attrition rate, but I disagree that that is the whole story and I would argue that not upgrading the graphics is a small contributor. The fact that I exist and did not buy cata for the reasons stated is proof that there are more contributors to the attrition rate, and the fact that I didn't buy a third account is proof. Also, the fact that Blizzard likes to change the different races and classes so much is another very good reason. The multiple changes to resto druids, ret pallies, and prot pallies are prime examples, not to mention totally changing the talent trees and the way spells work, or totally eliminating some spells altogether. Hey, it doesn't really matter what class of healer you make because they will all be the same anyway. Brilliant... not...

I think that defending Blizzard or any of the MMOs that want to charge double for content is dumb. I think that it is extremely stupid for a company to forgo $180 in revenue because they want to charge for an expansion pack even if content wasn't included in the subscription fees is dumb. I think it is stupid to think that new users are going to cough up more than what the new game cost when they can't even play the old content (except for quests, obviously). I think it is stupid for a company to allegedly offer a sale and then not advertise or hardly advertise the sale.
October 26, 2011 12:54:10 PM

nrgxExcuse me, but didn't you say "So you complain Blizz is doing something that every other subscription based game does"? I have shown at least one example where what you said is false. Eve is a subscription based game. You were obviously incorrect. Get over it.I didn't buy cata so I have no proof of what cata cost almost a year ago. I do recall buying WOTLK and it costing $49.99 and I assumed cata would cost the same. I recall paying $55 and change with tax included.Wow, $45 for everything? That price is reasonable. I wonder why I never saw that sale. I didn't even see it advertised in the host of comercials I saw for WOW. I would think that Blizzard would want new users to know about this sale if they wanted to increase new users, so I guess Blizzard is just stupid for not advertising it or something. Strange.I am not saying that a new user would not play the content, I am saying that a new user CAN'T play the content, except for cata content. The only content a new user can play are the quests. A new user can't go to group finder and say "hey, I want to find a group for wailing caverns" (assuming wailing caverns even exists now) and hope to get a group in a reasonable period of time because there aren't enough users wanting to play through wailing caverns. Indeed, some of the instances do not even exist anymore with cata coming out, or even with WOTLK coming out (can't play classic ony after WOTLK). Or perhaps you think that a new user can solo an instance which was meant for 5 players or more? Or do you think that a new player would gain as much enjoyment of playing all content by soloing said content when their level is high enough? I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't get as much enjoyment soloing 5 person instances as I would have gotten with actually playing with 4 other persons.I believe you were the one who was trying to compare a generic game to WOW, not me, so I agree, the comparison is in fact silly. You can't compare the two. That is my entire point. It doesn't matter what you get for the $15/month. The point is that in one case there is an ongoing $15/month and in the other case there is not. I am glad that you at least agree on this point.The fact of the matter is, not only are new users more rare but the high startup costs keep multiple accounts down as well. I myself had two accounts and I would have gotten a third account except that the startup cost was too high and the cost of the "Expansion packs" multiplied by the number of accounts was too high. The fact remains that Blizzard forfeited $180 per account just because Blizzard wanted to charge $50 per account for an expansion pack (ok, maybe it was $40, I can't prove that it was actually $50 a year ago). That is a loss of $130 (ok, if it was $40 it is a loss of $140 which makes Blizzard even dumber. Thanks for helping me out by showing that blizzard is even dumber than what I previously thought.).I agree that not upgrading the graphics etc. might have something to do with their attrition rate, but I disagree that that is the whole story and I would argue that not upgrading the graphics is a small contributor. The fact that I exist and did not buy cata for the reasons stated is proof that there are more contributors to the attrition rate, and the fact that I didn't buy a third account is proof. Also, the fact that Blizzard likes to change the different races and classes so much is another very good reason. The multiple changes to resto druids, ret pallies, and prot pallies are prime examples, not to mention totally changing the talent trees and the way spells work, or totally eliminating some spells altogether. Hey, it doesn't really matter what class of healer you make because they will all be the same anyway. Brilliant... not...I think that defending Blizzard or any of the MMOs that want to charge double for content is dumb. I think that it is extremely stupid for a company to forgo $180 in revenue because they want to charge for an expansion pack even if content wasn't included in the subscription fees is dumb. I think it is stupid to think that new users are going to cough up more than what the new game cost when they can't even play the old content (except for quests, obviously). I think it is stupid for a company to allegedly offer a sale and then not advertise or hardly advertise the sale.

You were the one who goes on ranting about how Blizzard charges for expansions as if they were only one doing it. Then claimed that other games don't do it like Lord of the Rings Online and it was shown that indeed it is commonplace. You have ONE example of a subscription based game that does not sell expansions. That is the exception, not the rule.

And Wrath NEVER cost $49.99 new. Here's a link to a September 2008 article on Kotaku about Wrath's release pricing http://kotaku.com/5045310/wrath-of-the-lich-king-date-p... and as you can see it says $40 (which is rounded from $39.99) so please, just stop lieing. If you aren't lieing, how about providing links to advertisements showing it, because if you paid $50, that shows you to be an awful consumer who actually works at being ripped of. As for the sales, the two times Blizzard has had it, they advertised it all over the place. Perhaps you didn't see it like you didn't see how all these other sub based games sell expansions.

And the comparison of local games was merely in response to your insinuation that it's so expensive to get started with WoW, "In addition, how can you expect a new player to buy all of the "expansion packs" just so they can play with their friends?" is what you said. As I showed, it is, at most, $30 more to get EVERYTHING for WoW than what a console game would cost. A monthly fee for a sub game or microtransactions for a F2P game is expected for an MMO and thus is incidental to the discussion. If a person has an issue paying $90 over $60 for many times the content, then they shouldn't buy a game where they have to pay up to $180 a year on subscription fees while playing that game, even if the game was $5.

And you keep saying Blizzard is so dumb. Well, WoW did hit 12 million subscribers. If they are so dumb and your EVE Online is so smart, why is there so few subscribers for that game? The fact is you want to rail against Blizzard for doing what is the norm in the industry.

BTW, I am one of those "attrition" numbers. I can assure you that I, and those I know, who left WoW did not do so because of cost. If you want to complain about WoW, complain about how the community has been destroyed or how the story get's constantly retconned or how the gameplay is being directed to non Warcraft fans and pushing away long time Warcraft fans.

Honestly, your complaining about pricing, and your lies about the pricing, make you seem like one of these entitlement babies who believe you deserve to have something and someone else should eat the cost.
October 28, 2011 4:08:27 PM

wildkittenYou were the one who goes on ranting about how Blizzard charges for expansions as if they were only one doing it. Then claimed that other games don't do it like Lord of the Rings Online and it was shown that indeed it is commonplace. You have ONE example of a subscription based game that does not sell expansions. That is the exception, not the rule.

You are wrong. Go back and read my posts and you will see that you are wrong. I very plainly said that I SUSPECTED that LOTRO was similar to Eve and I was not 100% sure because I didn't play LOTRO. I NEVER said that Blizzard was the only company charging for "expansion packs" and losing revenue as a result. You, on the other hand, stated WITH CERTAINTY that NO subscription based game did not charge for "expansion packs". I only need ONE example because you stated WITH CERTAINTY that there were NONE. Admit you were wrong and move on.

wildkittenAnd Wrath NEVER cost $49.99 new. Here's a link to a September 2008 article on Kotaku about Wrath's release pricing http://kotaku.com/5045310/wrath-of [...] date-price and as you can see it says $40 (which is rounded from $39.99) so please, just stop lieing. If you aren't lieing, how about providing links to advertisements showing it, because if you paid $50, that shows you to be an awful consumer who actually works at being ripped of. As for the sales, the two times Blizzard has had it, they advertised it all over the place. Perhaps you didn't see it like you didn't see how all these other sub based games sell expansions.


I went back and checked my credit card bills and you are right, I paid $39.99. I don't know how I got it into my head that I paid $49.99, but I was not lying, I was mistaken. At least I admit when I am wrong.

But the 25% price difference doesn't really make that much of a difference to the underlying argument. Blizzard is losing $180 of revenue per year per account because Blizzard wants to charge $40 for an "expansion pack". I currently have three Eve accounts. That is $540 of revenue that I will have paid Eve after a year instead of Blizzard, all because Blizzard wants to charge me $120 ($40 times 3) on top of the $540.

wildkittenAs for the sales, the two times Blizzard has had it, they advertised it all over the place. Perhaps you didn't see it like you didn't see how all these other sub based games sell expansions.


Really? That is strange, because I saw a crap load of commercials advertising cata, and I saw a few ads on web sites advertising that people could play to level 20 for free, but I never once saw any commercial or ad saying that you could get into the game for under $50. And why does it have to be a sale? Why not just make that the permanent price? The price seems fair to me. I guess Blizzard feels that the price is not fair for the long term?

wildkittenAnd the comparison of local games was merely in response to your insinuation that it's so expensive to get started with WoW, "In addition, how can you expect a new player to buy all of the "expansion packs" just so they can play with their friends?" is what you said. As I showed, it is, at most, $30 more to get EVERYTHING for WoW than what a console game would cost. A monthly fee for a sub game or microtransactions for a F2P game is expected for an MMO and thus is incidental to the discussion. If a person has an issue paying $90 over $60 for many times the content, then they shouldn't buy a game where they have to pay up to $180 a year on subscription fees while playing that game, even if the game was $5.


Back to this old argument again? $90 compared to $60 is a 50% increase in startup cost. A 50% increase is not small. And let's look at the total cost of ownership: for the console game you have $60 over a year and for WOW you have $270 over a year, which comes out to a 350% increase. Once again, it is like comparing apples to oranges when you compare the cost of a game that does not have a subscription with the cost of WOW, or any subscription based game.

If $15/month is "incidental", then it seems like you are arguing that Blizzard should not charge $15/month because it is so "incidental". I mean, if it is so "incidental" then it should not matter to Blizzard.

wildkittenBTW, I am one of those "attrition" numbers. I can assure you that I, and those I know, who left WoW did not do so because of cost. If you want to complain about WoW, complain about how the community has been destroyed or how the story get's constantly retconned or how the gameplay is being directed to non Warcraft fans and pushing away long time Warcraft fans.


I feel your pain. Seriously. But I am stating my opinion how and when I want to. That is what free speech is all about. If you want to interpret me stating my opinion as complaining that is your choice, and in which case I can state that you are complaining about me stating my opinion, which you have a right to do. But seriously, don't tell me how to exercise my right of free speech. That is for me to decide, not you.
!