EPTWorld of Warcraft Classic - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4416 Posts
Levelling 45-60 going to be a nightmare. Maybe they'll release WSG early. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
World of Warcraft Classic drove the biggest quarterly increase to subscription plans in franchise history They just confirmed that Classic caused a quarterly gain of more than 3.1 million subscribers, the previous record (MOP to WOD transition quarter). Holy shit. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22369 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
| ||
|
Warri
Germany3208 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HuofkjB.jpg) | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
Naturally the game would attract a very large crowd of retired retail players but if it wasnt effectively free it wouldnt have been even close to that number. I disagree strongly, that gold has a legitimate value. Earning it isn't "free", it takes lots of time/effort/realmoney which has unarguable real world value. It can be spent or traded for lots of things that have value including the entire blizzard store so it goes without saying that it would have a strong exchange rate to real money. My 6 month sub cost at the time ~£9 a month but the people paying via token are giving blizzard £17/month indirectly - notice how they increased the token £££ price again recently? That's probably responsible for half of your price spike. That's 70% more money being transfered from the playerbase to Blizzard per-person-month, assuming people were buying subs in 1 month blocks. 89% more money going to blizzard if they bought 6 tokens instead of a 6 month sub block. BFA's sell-token-buy-boost economy is also insane, billions of gold per month. It's largely responsible for rendering most in-game activities a complete waste of time for gold generation by comparison to selling your time to the crowd dumping huge piles of real money into the game. That must drive a huge percentage of their token traffic. | ||
|
Warri
Germany3208 Posts
On November 09 2019 03:20 Cyro wrote: I disagree strongly, that gold has a legitimate value. Earning it isn't "free", it takes lots of time/effort/realmoney which has unarguable real world value. It can be spent or traded for lots of things that have value including the entire blizzard store so it goes without saying that it would have a strong exchange rate to real money.[...] BFA's sell-token-buy-boost economy is also insane, billions of gold per month. Exactly, the classic "subscriber spike" is so high because the people who pay real money part of tokens are doing so for the RETAIL accolades. If those people didnt play retail you couldnt buy tokens for gold. Hence my point that the success of classic is subsidized by retail players. You have a point that that gold could also be used for other stuff on the store but in my opinion most people dont do so, case in point myself and the two people who started to play with me. I have millions in retail and i only started classic because i could use that gold, i wouldnt pay real money for it. And of course you have a point that this is whats wrong with retail, i somewhat agree (even though i like it myself as i have the opportunity to abuse that), but that's an unrelated matter to the success of classic. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
I have millions in retail and i only started classic because i could use that gold, i wouldnt pay real money for it. You paid £17/month in equivalent gold, just through an exchange rate. You already paid real resources for that currency. You're asserting that there's a difference to you and to other people because it's not "real" but haven't really explained why you feel that way | ||
|
Warri
Germany3208 Posts
So to me the gold is just gold, i spent "play"time acquiring it, not "work" time or even real money. The person who DID pay the real money for that token did so because he wanted a reward in RETAIL, not in classic. Obviously i dont have any statistics to prove my point, other than the fact that the token price increased by a lot, hinting that a lot of people paid for the sub with a token they bought for gold (like me) and a lot of them probably would not have subscribed and started playing classic if they had to pay real money (like me). So this is just my educated guess. Anyway, from blizzards perspective this doesnt matter. Money is money and maybe they even got a lot of extra money out of it cause more people bought tokens for real money because the price spiked and they could get more gold. I just wanted to point out that classic is only this succesful because of retail players who paid that money, not classic players, and had tokens not been in the game that subscriber number would probably be like 2million instead of 3m, or even less. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
I just wanted to point out that classic is only this succesful because of retail players who paid that money It doesn't matter who paid, Blizzard got the money that they weren't going to get and in fact got a lot more than they would otherwise. What farvacola said. I would actually argue that the perceived distinction is being intentionally abused to get more money out of you. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22369 Posts
On November 09 2019 08:54 ProMeTheus112 wrote: A layer is like a separate server in regards to capacity.Why would queues increase when they turn layers off, are they going to drop the population cap too or it remains 10K or what value?? can't wait for layers turned off huhu^^ So a server with 3 layers can handle 3x the population of a non-layered server. When you turn layering off those upto 3x population needs to fit in 1. Which it doesn't, and therefor you get queues. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
If you add a copy of the zone instead past a certain point, it increases closer to linearly. One copy of the zone can't support anywhere near as many players as 2+ could because of the differences in scaling, so for the same experience you'd need much stricter population limits. People already regularly break the servers on e.g. faerlina when they invite everybody into interlocked raid groups to force multiple layers worth of players together within a zone. You just see a bunch of people running on the spot and it takes 45 seconds for a spell cast to start when you push the button. Quite likely those servers with daily 2-3 hour queues will become 10 hours, prompting a lot of people to jump ship | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
(northdale did so free of charge with much quicker in game response time and no faction balance problem) | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20327 Posts
So glad i saw this coming and rolled PVE PVP-Alliance just didn't seem tenable at launch and indeed flopped hard | ||
| ||
