It would be like a streaming service for cards, youd get to keep the ones you own but when the subscription ends the ones you don't own go away. Is this a move or nah? too expensive? idk interested in your thoughts on this
Just improve the rewards, except for the 40 gold quest who disappeared, they are the same of when the model was expansion-adventure-expansion-adventure. Only, now its 3 exp per year
F2P here, I think this will completely kill Blizzard's revenue, not to mention the incredibly insulting feeling for people who have spent 4 digits worth of hard earned money. I don't see this working out... and personally wouldn't subscribe even if it was $1
This is actually cheaper than it is now. Buying packs for sure is more than 100 euro for 4 months if you want whole collection. You can achieve 200 packs for somewhere 130 euro + if you save for 70 more packs with gold (if they keep mega bundle + bundle as the cheapest option so far). Of course this is better. And you can stop paying for 2-3 months if you dont want to play and than to come back. I can make sure bet that this is not gonna happen. And of course there a lot of kids, which never go on math lessons and will cry that it is more expensive and worst than now, cos blizzard are evil (just like that).
PS For F2P players this will change nothing actually, so I dont understand what pay 2 win is there. In card game always people with more cards has more decks ... IN every card game.
Blizzard would have to create separate ranked and casual queues for "all access" players, as it just wouldn't be fair to those who don't have every card available to them. Also, realize net decking would be even worse than it is now in such a format as you wouldn't have players making substitutions for missing cards as currently do.
On of the fun parts of the game is collecting the cards and playing only the decks you can get together with your collection. 0/10 would kill half the fun.
The way it is now is actually more P2W than this. I spend way more than 25$ on average per month to have almost all cards at each expansion (buying around 180-240 packs each expansion).
From a business perspective, recurring electronic subscription revenue is the absolute ideal. Companies want stable revenue streams from subscription rather than big spikes and troughs throughout various months of the year. The stable, predictable nature of subscription makes it easier to forecast earnings and plan the business' future.
From a player's perspective, I would hate this. It sounds attractive to people who have small collections and don't have the money to spend to get all the cards but it's an awful idea. Ito personal finance, you want to reduce your recurring expenses as much as possible and even though I would probably end up spending less on a sub than I do now, I would still be against it. An ongoing $25 or whatever expense is not something I am willing to consider. If I decide to drop $200 per expansion, that's my choice and I am fine with that. If I decide not to for whatever reason, I can still play with the cards I have. I imagine that without a sub, then I won't be able to play at all.
It would be like a streaming service for cards, youd get to keep the ones you own but when the subscription ends the ones you don't own go away. Is this a move or nah? too expensive? idk interested in your thoughts on this
You would probably have every card in the game if you paid $300 a year.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It would be like a streaming service for cards, youd get to keep the ones you own but when the subscription ends the ones you don't own go away. Is this a move or nah? too expensive? idk interested in your thoughts on this
Maybe for $10. $25 a bit steep.
Well that's one way to kill half the player base when it becomes even more pay to win.
Also.. don't give Blizzard ideas :/
it should be $5.99 monthly or $49.99 yearly
Dead but dreaming
would kill blizzards profits
$25? lol are you kidding? This wouldn't even be worth a Netflix subscription tbh
That wouldn't make it any more "pay to win" than it is now.....
Just improve the rewards, except for the 40 gold quest who disappeared, they are the same of when the model was expansion-adventure-expansion-adventure. Only, now its 3 exp per year
So for the price of 50 packs get all cards for a year?
can you name one card game where it works like that?
--Alfi--
Paying for access to cards in a collectible card game? A weird idea.
F2P here, I think this will completely kill Blizzard's revenue, not to mention the incredibly insulting feeling for people who have spent 4 digits worth of hard earned money. I don't see this working out... and personally wouldn't subscribe even if it was $1
It worked for Artifact...
Oh
Wait
😅
4/3/19 RIP Keith Flint. 😔
This is actually cheaper than it is now. Buying packs for sure is more than 100 euro for 4 months if you want whole collection. You can achieve 200 packs for somewhere 130 euro + if you save for 70 more packs with gold (if they keep mega bundle + bundle as the cheapest option so far). Of course this is better. And you can stop paying for 2-3 months if you dont want to play and than to come back. I can make sure bet that this is not gonna happen. And of course there a lot of kids, which never go on math lessons and will cry that it is more expensive and worst than now, cos blizzard are evil (just like that).
PS For F2P players this will change nothing actually, so I dont understand what pay 2 win is there. In card game always people with more cards has more decks ... IN every card game.
Blizzard would have to create separate ranked and casual queues for "all access" players, as it just wouldn't be fair to those who don't have every card available to them. Also, realize net decking would be even worse than it is now in such a format as you wouldn't have players making substitutions for missing cards as currently do.
But why? You don't need every card in the game to make a top tier ladder deck.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
On of the fun parts of the game is collecting the cards and playing only the decks you can get together with your collection. 0/10 would kill half the fun.
If it got like that I would leave.
The way it is now is actually more P2W than this. I spend way more than 25$ on average per month to have almost all cards at each expansion (buying around 180-240 packs each expansion).
From a business perspective, recurring electronic subscription revenue is the absolute ideal. Companies want stable revenue streams from subscription rather than big spikes and troughs throughout various months of the year. The stable, predictable nature of subscription makes it easier to forecast earnings and plan the business' future.
From a player's perspective, I would hate this. It sounds attractive to people who have small collections and don't have the money to spend to get all the cards but it's an awful idea. Ito personal finance, you want to reduce your recurring expenses as much as possible and even though I would probably end up spending less on a sub than I do now, I would still be against it. An ongoing $25 or whatever expense is not something I am willing to consider. If I decide to drop $200 per expansion, that's my choice and I am fine with that. If I decide not to for whatever reason, I can still play with the cards I have. I imagine that without a sub, then I won't be able to play at all.
So, that's a no from me, Jeff.
Missing lethal since June 2015.
You would probably have every card in the game if you paid $300 a year.