Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

100 bucks to start playing WoW? REALLY?

daveospicedaveospice Olympia, WAPosts: 346Member

If I want to be up to date and start playing WoW for the first time and have all the access everyone else does I have to pay 100 bucks?  This late in the game?

This game looks like it was made in 1998 and was state of the art THEN!  Why the hell would I pay 100 bucks for out dated graphics, and generic gameplay?  If it was FTP MAYBE, but 100 bucks and 15 bucks a month to play a game that everyone considers the carebear game of the masses?  Whatever man.  Whatever.  Lower the damn price or no new players will try it.

«134

Comments

  • praguespragues RoubaixPosts: 161Member

    Apparently 12.000.000 players are willing to pay the fee...

    Or the equivalent of 1.2 to 1.4 billion dollars per year. (depending on expansion box sales).

    So perhaps that shows a sign about the overall quality. From flying mounts to rated PvP to extreme hard Raid content to seamless open world design ...

     

    Quality has its price.

  • VirusDancerVirusDancer Brandon, FLPosts: 3,649Member

    $100?

    Hrmm, from the Blizzard Store you have a few options:

    WoW $20, BC $30, LK $40, Cata $40 = $130.

    BattleChest $40, LK $40, Cata $40 = $120.

    Course, through GameStop you could go:

    BattleChest $30, LK $30, Cata $40 = $100.

    What game are you comparing the pricing to?  Did you know the DCUO CE version was $100?  I mean, you know?

    Standard pricing on most games is going to run you $40-60 for a non-CE these days.

    I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?

    Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%

  • VirusDancerVirusDancer Brandon, FLPosts: 3,649Member

    Originally posted by pragues

    Apparently 12.000.000 players are willing to pay the fee...

    Or the equivalent of 1.2 to 1.4 billion dollars per year. (depending on expansion box sales).

    So perhaps that shows a sign about the overall quality. From flying mounts to rated PvP to extreme hard Raid content to seamless open world design ...

    Quality has its price.

    I had to laugh at the part in red.  I mean, I seriously had to laugh at the part in red.

    By the way, worldwide - Cataclysm has only sold 3.4m retail copies.

    The 12m number is bogus - Blizzard even admits this in their footnotes on their releases.

    /tiredsigh

    I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?

    Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%

  • RallycartRallycart Austin, TXPosts: 717Member

    Watch this:

    You do the trial to see if you like the game. If you DO like the game, then you pay 5 dollars to upgrade it to just standard WoW. You dont need TBC, WOTLK or Cataclysm unless you are DYING for one of the races they unlocked. (unlikely) So, you play for some time on your way up to 60. You find out that you like the game. You can then go and buy the rest, of just pick up TBC. Play through that content, and decide if the game is still for you, etc.

    Same goes for any other MMO. You obviously dont buy everything before you know what you are going to do. I played EQ1 without most of the expansions because I never got to any of that content. Then when I got to a content barrier, I picked up an expansion. Simple as that.

  • praguespragues RoubaixPosts: 161Member

    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    Originally posted by pragues

    Apparently 12.000.000 players are willing to pay the fee...

    Or the equivalent of 1.2 to 1.4 billion dollars per year. (depending on expansion box sales).

    So perhaps that shows a sign about the overall quality. From flying mounts to rated PvP to extreme hard Raid content to seamless open world design ...

    Quality has its price.

    I had to laugh at the part in red.  I mean, I seriously had to laugh at the part in red.

    By the way, worldwide - Cataclysm has only sold 3.4m retail copies.

    The 12m number is bogus - Blizzard even admits this in their footnotes on their releases.

    /tiredsigh

    The income in 2010 for WOW alone was way over 1.4 billion dollars. (up from 1.1 in 2009).

    And the average critical acclaim on the web = 91.46 %. far more than any other MMO. (29 reviews average).

    http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/971498-world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/index.html

     

    So your opinion stands pretty much in a desert compared to what the reviews say.

    I have no idea why you would lie about thoseCata  sales though as ... they are only the sales numbers of the first day ...

  • ste2000ste2000 londonPosts: 4,705Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by daveospice

    If I want to be up to date and start playing WoW for the first time and have all the access everyone else does I have to pay 100 bucks?  This late in the game?

    This game looks like it was made in 1998 and was state of the art THEN!  Why the hell would I pay 100 bucks for out dated graphics, and generic gameplay?  If it was FTP MAYBE, but 100 bucks and 15 bucks a month to play a game that everyone considers the carebear game of the masses?  Whatever man.  Whatever.  Lower the damn price or no new players will try it.

    Blizzard doesn't need you, some other 10 million people don't have a problem with it.

    I really don't understand what you are talking about though, to start playing WoW you need half that amount I don't understand how did you get to 100 bucks.

    WoW is one of the few MMOs which still justify paying a monthly fee..............since everyone is trying to copy it, there must be something good about it.

  • VirusDancerVirusDancer Brandon, FLPosts: 3,649Member

    Originally posted by pragues

    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    ...snip...

    The income in 2010 for WOW alone was way over 1.4 billion dollars. (up from 1.1 in 2009).

    And the average critical acclaim on the web = 91.46 %. far more than any other MMO. (29 reviews average).

    http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/971498-world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/index.html

     

    So your opinion stands pretty much in a desert compared to what the reviews say.

    I have no idea why you would lie about thoseCata  sales though as ... they are only the sales numbers of the first day ...

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm

    49 fluff marketing reviews ripped apart by user reviews.

    It is funny how many of the reviews mention WoW's success with sub numbers.  Numbers that Blizzard admits in their footnotes are only account numbers and not sub numbers.

    Cataclysm's retail sales:  http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/38102/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/

    Pretty much reflects those that "had to buy it", those that bought it on "marketing", and the drop off at the realization there was no point.  12 mil accounts, and barely a quarter have purchased it, eh?  It is odd that it only shows 3.4 mil sold in 10 weeks when Blizzard claims 3.3 mil sold in the first 24 hours, eh?  Perhaps accounting for digital sales not reflected in the other numbers?  Perhaps accounting for that magical Blizzard accounting that takes place in general?

    As to revenue, Activision Blizzard's revenue was down for 2010 compared to 2009.  Much of that was offset by layofffs and cost cutting endeavors to reduce the hit they would take closing out the year, still ending up losing $233m in the 4th quarter (which would include that magical release of Cataclysm and continued sales of Black Ops).

    So you can continue to push the McDonald's sells a lot of burgers so it must mean quality thing all you want - nobody is listening these days...

    I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?

    Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%

  • ShadoedShadoed BirminghamPosts: 1,499Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by daveospice

    If I want to be up to date and start playing WoW for the first time and have all the access everyone else does I have to pay 100 bucks?  This late in the game?

    This game looks like it was made in 1998 and was state of the art THEN!  Why the hell would I pay 100 bucks for out dated graphics, and generic gameplay?  If it was FTP MAYBE, but 100 bucks and 15 bucks a month to play a game that everyone considers the carebear game of the masses?  Whatever man.  Whatever.  Lower the damn price or no new players will try it.

     Firstly, it isn't 100 bucks 'to start' as you can try the demo first for nothing to get a taste and from there just buy the basic with your first month free.

    But, if you insist on 'full access' then it is no worse value than the majority of paid MMO's and even so called 'free to play' MMO's. If you want 'Full Access' in some of the 'free' games you can pay a few hundred bucks minimum. There was another thread on this not too long ago with regard to the cost of expansions, but when i did the calculations on that one, WoW with all the expansions and a years sub cost less than EvE across a year even with it's so called free expansions.

    As far as 'no new players will try it' is concerned, well that has no foundation what so ever and from a personal perspective with a guild of almost 500 members, new players are coming in all the time, regardless of this supposed high cost.

    It must be Thursday, i never could get the hang of Thursdays.

  • mklinicmklinic Pottstown, PAPosts: 1,435Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by jason_webb

     WoW with all the expansions and a years sub cost less than EvE across a year even with it's so called free expansions.

    eh?

    EvE is $131.40 for 12 months plus $19.99 to start. The $19.99 includes one month and all expansions so you're getting 13 months in this scenario.

    http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/pricing.asp

    WoW appears to be $155.88 for 2 x 6 month subs (did not see an option for 12 month)

    http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=20504

    EvE seems to have WoW beat by about $4 and a month of sub time while providing all expansions at no extra cost. I am completely open to the idea that I missed something or my math is just horrible though so feel free to correct me. 

    -mklinic

    "There's a point I think we're missing.
    It's in the air we raise our fists in."
    -from Behind Closed Doors by Rise Against

  • Pr0tag0ni5tPr0tag0ni5t Lincoln, ILPosts: 220Member

    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    Originally posted by pragues


    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    ...snip...

    The income in 2010 for WOW alone was way over 1.4 billion dollars. (up from 1.1 in 2009).

    And the average critical acclaim on the web = 91.46 %. far more than any other MMO. (29 reviews average).

    http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/971498-world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/index.html

     

    So your opinion stands pretty much in a desert compared to what the reviews say.

    I have no idea why you would lie about thoseCata  sales though as ... they are only the sales numbers of the first day ...

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm

    49 fluff marketing reviews ripped apart by user reviews.

    It is funny how many of the reviews mention WoW's success with sub numbers.  Numbers that Blizzard admits in their footnotes are only account numbers and not sub numbers.

    Cataclysm's retail sales:  http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/38102/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/

    Pretty much reflects those that "had to buy it", those that bought it on "marketing", and the drop off at the realization there was no point.  12 mil accounts, and barely a quarter have purchased it, eh?  It is odd that it only shows 3.4 mil sold in 10 weeks when Blizzard claims 3.3 mil sold in the first 24 hours, eh?  Perhaps accounting for digital sales not reflected in the other numbers?  Perhaps accounting for that magical Blizzard accounting that takes place in general?

    As to revenue, Activision Blizzard's revenue was down for 2010 compared to 2009.  Much of that was offset by layofffs and cost cutting endeavors to reduce the hit they would take closing out the year, still ending up losing $233m in the 4th quarter (which would include that magical release of Cataclysm and continued sales of Black Ops).

    So you can continue to push the McDonald's sells a lot of burgers so it must mean quality thing all you want - nobody is listening these days...

    Well said VirusD...well said....Pragues loves to post obscure websites that only supports his point of view....thanks for this stuff Virus nice find.

    image
  • EagleDelta2EagleDelta2 Lincoln, NEPosts: 14Member

    Originally posted by mklinic

    Originally posted by jason_webb


     WoW with all the expansions and a years sub cost less than EvE across a year even with it's so called free expansions.

    eh?

    EvE is $131.40 for 12 months plus $19.99 to start. The $19.99 includes one month and all expansions so you're getting 13 months in this scenario.

    http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/pricing.asp

    WoW appears to be $155.88 for 2 x 6 month subs (did not see an option for 12 month)

    http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=20504

    EvE seems to have WoW beat by about $4 and a month of sub time while providing all expansions at no extra cost. I am completely open to the idea that I missed something or my math is just horrible though so feel free to correct me. 

    You are forgetting the box cost of WoW here:

    WoW + all Expansions = between $100-$130 (depending on where you get it)

    WoW Sub = $155.88 per year (or 14.95/mo)

    Future Expansion = $40 (usually)

    EVE + all Expansions = $19.99

    EVE Sub = $131.40 per year (or 14.95/mo)

    Future Expansion = Free with Subscription.

    EVE also has better graphics and is constantly adding completely new game mechanics (planetary interaction, walking in stations, new character creator, link to DUST514 MMOFPS) and WoW has remained mostly the same/similar since it came out in 2005.

    Point is that over time and with new users a game like EVE costs significantly less to have access to all content.  Now, you don't have to buy all the WoW expansions when you start, but still while WoW IS a good game, the only reason it can charge as much as it does is because of its success (and b/c Activision execs greedy bastards) as it really isn't any better than EVE, Guild Wars, LOTRO, or DDU.

  • htiger23htiger23 Ames, IAPosts: 113Member

    Originally posted by Socman75

    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    Originally posted by pragues

    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    ...snip...

    The income in 2010 for WOW alone was way over 1.4 billion dollars. (up from 1.1 in 2009).

    And the average critical acclaim on the web = 91.46 %. far more than any other MMO. (29 reviews average).

    http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/971498-world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/index.html

     

    So your opinion stands pretty much in a desert compared to what the reviews say.

    I have no idea why you would lie about thoseCata  sales though as ... they are only the sales numbers of the first day ...

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm

    49 fluff marketing reviews ripped apart by user reviews.

    It is funny how many of the reviews mention WoW's success with sub numbers.  Numbers that Blizzard admits in their footnotes are only account numbers and not sub numbers.

    Cataclysm's retail sales:  http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/38102/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/

    Pretty much reflects those that "had to buy it", those that bought it on "marketing", and the drop off at the realization there was no point.  12 mil accounts, and barely a quarter have purchased it, eh?  It is odd that it only shows 3.4 mil sold in 10 weeks when Blizzard claims 3.3 mil sold in the first 24 hours, eh?  Perhaps accounting for digital sales not reflected in the other numbers?  Perhaps accounting for that magical Blizzard accounting that takes place in general?

    As to revenue, Activision Blizzard's revenue was down for 2010 compared to 2009.  Much of that was offset by layofffs and cost cutting endeavors to reduce the hit they would take closing out the year, still ending up losing $233m in the 4th quarter (which would include that magical release of Cataclysm and continued sales of Black Ops).

    So you can continue to push the McDonald's sells a lot of burgers so it must mean quality thing all you want - nobody is listening these days...

    Well said VirusD...well said....Pragues loves to post obscure websites that only supports his point of view....thanks for this stuff Virus nice find.

     As a financial analyst, I love comments like the following:

    Perhaps accounting for that magical Blizzard accounting that takes place in general?

    You do realize that being part of a publicly traded company places a lot of scrutiny on your company, right?  Wall Street analysts / government / internal and external auditors all pick apart the numbers that go into their press and earnings releases, so you can be assured that everything is correct.  You can hate on Blizzard as much as you want, that is apparently what you enjoy, but don't call their accounting practices into question if you don't have solid proof.

  • cheyanecheyane Rome Posts: 3,002Member Uncommon

    It is a very successful game it does not need to cut its prices I guess. People buy and play it. Games that are in bargain bin obviously did not make it but WoW does not fall into the bargain bin category despite its age.

    image

    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

  • gordiflugordiflu BarcelonaPosts: 757Member

    Originally posted by pragues

    Apparently 12.000.000 players are willing to pay the fee...

    Or the equivalent of 1.2 to 1.4 billion dollars per year. (depending on expansion box sales).

    So perhaps that shows a sign about the overall quality. From flying mounts to rated PvP to extreme hard Raid content to seamless open world design ...

     

    Quality has its price.

    Lots of ppl prefering something does not necessarily mean it has more quality.

    Just think about the movies, books or music that sell more. Yes, it's usually the action movies with a weak plot and bad acting, the dumb books that just follow the trend of the moment and the repetitive dumb radio-formula song the ones that sell more. Think Vin Diesel vs Kim Ki Duk, the Harry Potter saga vs Nietschze or the general MTV rubbish vs actually alternative bands that bring something new.

    12m ppl playing WoW talks about its accessibility, about the game working on any crap computer, no matter how outdated it is, talks about marketing and about how easy the game is. It does not talk about quality.

    Which brings me to the second part: extreme hard raiding and WoW in the same sentence? Pardon? Which other MMOs have you played? Hello Kitty Online? Cmon.

  • fodell54fodell54 Posts: 309Member Uncommon

     


    If you like to play something similar to Wow you can always pick up EQ2. Although most players don’t like to admit that it’s similar lol. But you could buy the new expansion for $39.99 (Standard Digital Version.)  This includes all previous expansions and 30 days free game time. Then if you wanted to stay for a while the year sub is also very similar to Wow’s but is a little cheaper at $143.99. I think EQ2 is a better bang for your buck anways but thats just my opinion.

    image

  • SmikisSmikis VilniusPosts: 1,045Member

    Cataclysm's retail sales:  http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/38102/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/

    Pretty much reflects those that "had to buy it", those that bought it on "marketing", and the drop off at the realization there was no point.  12 mil accounts, and barely a quarter have purchased it, eh?  It is odd that it only shows 3.4 mil sold in 10 weeks when Blizzard claims 3.3 mil sold in the first 24 hours, eh?  Perhaps accounting for digital sales not reflected in the other numbers?  Perhaps accounting for that magical Blizzard accounting that takes place in general?

    As to revenue, Activision Blizzard's revenue was down for 2010 compared to 2009.  Much of that was offset by layofffs and cost cutting endeavors to reduce the hit they would take closing out the year, still ending up losing $233m in the 4th quarter (which would include that magical release of Cataclysm and continued sales of Black Ops).

    So you can continue to push the McDonald's sells a lot of burgers so it must mean quality thing all you want - nobody is listening these days...

    The new expansion sold more than 3.3 million copies worldwide as of its first 24 hours of release, including digital pre-sales, eclipsing the previous first day record of 2.8 million sold for Wrath of the Lich King, released in 2008.

    http://pc.ign.com/articles/113/1139968p1.html

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11991041


    WORLD OF WARCRAFT®: CATACLYSM ONE-MONTH SALES TOP 4.7 MILLION

    IRVINE, Calif. -- January 10, 2011 -- Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. today announced that World of Warcraft®: Cataclysm, the third expansion for the critically acclaimed massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), has sold through more than 4.7 million copies as of its first month of release, setting a new record for monthly PC-game sales.*

    http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?110110

     

    To help put things into perspective, here's a breakdown of their expansion pack sales:



    The Burning Crusade (incl. Pre-Sales)

    2.4 million in first 24 hours

    3.5 million in first month



    Wrath of the Lich King (incl. Pre-Sales)

    2.8 million in first 24 hours

    4.0 million in first month



    Cataclysm (incl. Pre-Sales and Digital Downloads)

    3.3 million in first 24 hours

    4.7 million in first month

     


    Activision Blizzard Revenue Up 10% In 2010

    http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/news/e3i40db991978fd49cf49ef8dcc3b3aebb0

    ( im sure you can find more detailed link if you want.. i remember reading few )

     

    just had to point out that those vgcharts never were accurate, never accounted for digital sales, and never had real retail sales, only real numbers you can get is from blizzard itself..

     

    as for 100 bucks.. buy from retail. you can get battlechest for 10-20 bucks if you look around.. wotlk for another 20. and cata for 30~

  • catlanacatlana Houston, TXPosts: 1,677Member

    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    Originally posted by pragues


    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    ...snip...

    The income in 2010 for WOW alone was way over 1.4 billion dollars. (up from 1.1 in 2009).

    And the average critical acclaim on the web = 91.46 %. far more than any other MMO. (29 reviews average).

    http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/971498-world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/index.html

     

    So your opinion stands pretty much in a desert compared to what the reviews say.

    I have no idea why you would lie about thoseCata  sales though as ... they are only the sales numbers of the first day ...

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm

    49 fluff marketing reviews ripped apart by user reviews.

    It is funny how many of the reviews mention WoW's success with sub numbers.  Numbers that Blizzard admits in their footnotes are only account numbers and not sub numbers.

    Cataclysm's retail sales:  http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/38102/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/

    Pretty much reflects those that "had to buy it", those that bought it on "marketing", and the drop off at the realization there was no point.  12 mil accounts, and barely a quarter have purchased it, eh?  It is odd that it only shows 3.4 mil sold in 10 weeks when Blizzard claims 3.3 mil sold in the first 24 hours, eh?  Perhaps accounting for digital sales not reflected in the other numbers?  Perhaps accounting for that magical Blizzard accounting that takes place in general?

    As to revenue, Activision Blizzard's revenue was down for 2010 compared to 2009.  Much of that was offset by layofffs and cost cutting endeavors to reduce the hit they would take closing out the year, still ending up losing $233m in the 4th quarter (which would include that magical release of Cataclysm and continued sales of Black Ops).

    So you can continue to push the McDonald's sells a lot of burgers so it must mean quality thing all you want - nobody is listening these days...

    Lol, one of the worst analysis that I have ever seen. You do not have a future in stocks just let your fund manager handle everything.

    First, Vgchartz only estimates and attempts to track retail sales. Even then Vgchartz focuses on video game consoles. Blizzard was real agressive in getting their player base to go digital this round. The reason is really, really simple, profits. Blizzard gets only around 40 cents on the dollar through retail channels in the best circumstances. Blizzard gets 100% for their digital sales. 

    Second, distribution of accounts is nearly fifty percentage mainland China. Mainland China's Wow version is always, always a much later and different build due to Chinese regulations. In fact, Wrath only launched on August 24th, 2010 in China. 

    I can understand that you dislike WoW and want to bash the game at every opportunity, but please learn to check your facts and figures.  Here is a good source to start http://www.dailyfinance.com/rtn/pr/activision-blizzard-reports-december-quarter-and-calendar-year-2010-financial-results/rfid413093718/?channel=pf

  • A.BlacklochA.Blackloch NexusPosts: 831Member

    If Wow's price is too steep you should check out Pocket Legends. It's almost same game, same graphics and I think the community is around same age in both games. And I think it's even free.

    image image image

  • CecropiaCecropia Posts: 3,472Member Uncommon

    $100 for an mmo that was released in 2004 is utterly ridiculous. But, if people are actually willing/insane enough to dish out the cash, why would blizzy even think of dropping the price.

    It's probably going to stay that way until the sub numbers finally begin to descend. Which will happen, sooner or later.

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • jusomdudejusomdude Somewhere, KSPosts: 2,401Member

    While I think the older expansions could stand to be cheaper, they can't just give them away. You are getting an assload of content for what you're paying.

    Pay it or don't, I'm sure WoW will do fine either way.

  • eye_meye_m Notta Chance, ABPosts: 3,133Member Uncommon

    I get a kick out of people that use subscription numbers as proof of quality. If that were true then would McDonalds be classed as fine dining because they've served billions

    All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.

    I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.

    I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.

  • SukiyakiSukiyaki GreenwichPosts: 1,398Member Uncommon

    /tenchars

  • htiger23htiger23 Ames, IAPosts: 113Member

    Originally posted by Sukiyaki

    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    Originally posted by pragues

    Originally posted by VirusDancer

    ...snip...

    The income in 2010 for WOW alone was way over 1.4 billion dollars. (up from 1.1 in 2009).

    And the average critical acclaim on the web = 91.46 %. far more than any other MMO. (29 reviews average).

    http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/971498-world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/index.html

     

    So your opinion stands pretty much in a desert compared to what the reviews say.

    I have no idea why you would lie about thoseCata  sales though as ... they are only the sales numbers of the first day ...

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm

    49 fluff marketing reviews ripped apart by user reviews.

    It is funny how many of the reviews mention WoW's success with sub numbers.  Numbers that Blizzard admits in their footnotes are only account numbers and not sub numbers.

    Cataclysm's retail sales:  http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/38102/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm/

    Pretty much reflects those that "had to buy it", those that bought it on "marketing", and the drop off at the realization there was no point.  12 mil accounts, and barely a quarter have purchased it, eh?  It is odd that it only shows 3.4 mil sold in 10 weeks when Blizzard claims 3.3 mil sold in the first 24 hours, eh?  Perhaps accounting for digital sales not reflected in the other numbers?  Perhaps accounting for that magical Blizzard accounting that takes place in general?

    As to revenue, Activision Blizzard's revenue was down for 2010 compared to 2009.  Much of that was offset by layofffs and cost cutting endeavors to reduce the hit they would take closing out the year, still ending up losing $233m in the 4th quarter (which would include that magical release of Cataclysm and continued sales of Black Ops).

    So you can continue to push the McDonald's sells a lot of burgers so it must mean quality thing all you want - nobody is listening these days...

    Zorndorf is talking about the revenues from only WoW not overal Activision Blizzard. But he is intentionaly using the NON-Gaap numbers that have no legal bonding, can be arbitrary inflated or inaccurate, because there are no binding standards and are not even considered by the government. They usually are overestimates, while the GAAP revenues are usually only corrected up by 2-3% later to reflect the real core revenues. (Pretty hypocritical again anyway for someone who claimed over and over again how  NCSoft reports "must" all be faked, because they arent audited yet when they are released, but get audited and barely if at all changed once a year which he ofcourse didnt mention, but then posts numbers anywhere that will have no trustfull basis ever, just because the legitimate ones actually point out the opposite)

    But still, WoW revenues infact dropped down from  from 1248  Million US$ in 2009 to 1230 US$ in 2010 by GAAP standards. And in 2010 they even had a single time deal with NetEase that raised the revenues by ~60 million without any boxsale or subscription contribution. Blizzard may be able to inflate and hype their "subsriciber records" with Chinese casual and trialrun accounts,  but the financial facts are one thing they cant cover up completely at all. And covering up the downward trend in the west indicated by constant droping revenues since WotLK/2008 until only the quarter of Catas release, with release of another massively advertised and hyped expansions boxsales, is a move that cannot be used frequently.

    And I guess Zorn is the only one who actually really proclaims any value on these bought up and by busines relations tied "professional reviewers reviews" hes posting on every alt of his. Its a joke that doesnt even need to be argued.

     There really isn't much ambiguity in the GAAP to Non-GAAP conversion.  The difference is based upon their deferred revenues.  I have a hard time believing that they would intentionally place inaccuracies in their earnings releases.

     

    Also, if you read the footnotes on the subscription data (It was even linked above), you'll notice that they have a very strict definition of "subscriber". 

  • mklinicmklinic Pottstown, PAPosts: 1,435Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by EagleDelta2

    Originally posted by mklinic


    Originally posted by jason_webb


     WoW with all the expansions and a years sub cost less than EvE across a year even with it's so called free expansions.

    eh?

    EvE is $131.40 for 12 months plus $19.99 to start. The $19.99 includes one month and all expansions so you're getting 13 months in this scenario.

    http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/pricing.asp

    WoW appears to be $155.88 for 2 x 6 month subs (did not see an option for 12 month)

    http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=20504

    EvE seems to have WoW beat by about $4 and a month of sub time while providing all expansions at no extra cost. I am completely open to the idea that I missed something or my math is just horrible though so feel free to correct me. 

    You are forgetting the box cost of WoW here:

    Yeah I should have clarified that I was just comparing from the perspective of using a trial and then converting to a playable game. So, while likely not fair, it was more a EvE + Expansions versus the base WoW install (without BC, WOTLK, Cata).

    Now, to be fair, WoW has added a number of mechanics such as flying, combat vehcles, new profession, etc, but I'm afraid we are heading off into excessive derailment. Personally, I prefer EvE's style of expansion and the associanted price tag, but I don't think $100 is excessive for someone who is looking for a fairly polished themepark with a decent amount of content. I suppose the metric would be how it fairs against it's competitors. Does EQ2 have a price tag if you wanted to jump in and get all the content (or did it go free now)? What does it cost to get the game and expansions for AoC? I mean, if WoW is an anomly amongst similar products, then certainly there is a discussion there. Otherwise, it just seems complaining for the sake of it.

    -mklinic

    "There's a point I think we're missing.
    It's in the air we raise our fists in."
    -from Behind Closed Doors by Rise Against

  • ShadoedShadoed BirminghamPosts: 1,499Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by mklinic

    Originally posted by jason_webb

     WoW with all the expansions and a years sub cost less than EvE across a year even with it's so called free expansions.

    eh?

    EvE is $131.40 for 12 months plus $19.99 to start. The $19.99 includes one month and all expansions so you're getting 13 months in this scenario.

    http://www.eveonline.com/pnp/pricing.asp

    WoW appears to be $155.88 for 2 x 6 month subs (did not see an option for 12 month)

    http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=20504

    EvE seems to have WoW beat by about $4 and a month of sub time while providing all expansions at no extra cost. I am completely open to the idea that I missed something or my math is just horrible though so feel free to correct me. 

     I apologise, i found my original post which was on the 1/7/11 so prices are based on that dates game prices and euro conversion rates, but EvE did inch in for the first year cost, but was way more expensive ongoing;

    From play.com a few minutes ago;

    World Of Warcraft;

    Original + BC + Strategy Guides = £9.99

    Wrath of the Lich King = £17.99

    Cataclysm = £22.99

    11 Months Sub = £98.99

    Total = £149.86

    Eve Online

    Game = £6.98

    11 Months Sub = £140.25 (todays conversion from euro to £)

    Total = £147.23

    Go with Eve and save yourself the princely sum of 22p/month, welcome to 'free' expansions.

    Both based on month to month subs and current retail values.

     

    I based them on a month to month sub as that is more realistic than 6 or 12 month sub costs, although i am open to a challenge on that of course.

    It must be Thursday, i never could get the hang of Thursdays.

«134
Sign In or Register to comment.