Sorry but no. You are wrong, the game has become more expensive. You talking about duplicate protection but you are forgetting there is one more class we have now and there are more class legendaries. Please change the point of view.
The extra class makes no difference seeing as the overall size of the expansion has made the same (it has been 130-135 cards for every set since TGT). The number of legendaries has also not changed much. I mean it was lower back in 2015 or whatever, but back then we got so much less free stuff there is just no comparison.
If that's the best argument you've got that the game has got more expensive, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
So what is your argument that the game is the same or cheaper if it's not more expensive? Do you have any data that proves playtime and collection completion rates getting better?
"The number of legendaries has also not changed much." Really?
If I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel you are sitting at the bottom with a blindfold.
Watch the Hearthstone mathematics last video on youtube you deft and blind guy.
Sorry but no. You are wrong, the game has become more expensive. You talking about duplicate protection but you are forgetting there is one more class we have now and there are more class legendaries. Please change the point of view.
The extra class makes no difference seeing as the overall size of the expansion has made the same (it has been 130-135 cards for every set since TGT). The number of legendaries has also not changed much. I mean it was lower back in 2015 or whatever, but back then we got so much less free stuff there is just no comparison.
If that's the best argument you've got that the game has got more expensive, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
So what is your argument that the game is the same or cheaper if it's not more expensive? Do you have any data that proves playtime and collection completion rates getting better?
"The number of legendaries has also not changed much." Really?
If I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel you are sitting at the bottom with a blindfold.
Watch the Hearthstone mathematics last video on youtube you deft and blind guy.
They are saying it is not getting more expensive, apart from the income of efficient aggro players and casual mode farmers (As a meme player your worst enemies btw ^^' ). Also, did you even read what Daulphas and/or BravoTeam wrote? If so, what is your take on their statements
Once again coming from an F2P point of view! I don't pay anything to play this game...
What I don't have: a complete collection. many of the sets complete. more than 3-4k gold at the start of a new expansion. a ton of dust to craft with.
What I do have is: 3 decks I have crafted to play wild 1 deck to play standard. A free legendary every season (possibly 2 with the rewards track) 13+ free packs between expac release and rewards track No duplicates on rares and legendaries
Do I deserve more because I don't put any money into the game? NO!!! Do people who spend money deserve more because they pay? YES!!! (however, if it gives them a direct increase to win rate then it's not fair, due to the nature of hearthstones game style)
If you only get your cards from people handing them out for free and don't go out and pay for what you want/need - then it's your choice. It's not the companies choice if people spend money. It's the companies right and need to charge $$ for their services.
Is the game getting more expensive? I don't know because I haven't done any math or data collection to find out. But just from my basic understanding of the world - yea - it's getting more expensive inflation is a world wide phenomenon. Also, it's common business practice for businesses to increase prices on new / updated products (look at cars). Even MTG raised it's prices over time.
Blizzard hasn't done anything different or worse than any other business out there - in my opinion Gas(petrol) stations extort their customers the worst, Blizzard hasn't done anything like they do.
Does it make the game more expensive - yes Does it make it harder for some players - yes Does it make it illegal - no Does it mean they lied to you - no
If you understand how to run a business then you should be able to apply that knowledge to what's happening here. (I ran a table top game store for 11 years, one of our major products was MTG, so I have a fair understanding of how this works.)
It sucks when the prices don't match expectations - but just like any other purchase you must decide upon in life - you can choose to pay or not. That simple.
Since everyone ignored it last time, I'll just repost something that seems a tiny bit relevant to the discussion.
I'm not speaking from napkin math. I'm not building a spreadsheet. I can look at my bank account and see every 4 months like clockwork since 2014, the expenditure to maintain a full collection in Hearthstone. The fact that we have a new class and thus more legendaries IS relevant. The fact that we don't have adventures and instead have a full extra expansion from packs IS relevant.
Neither of these two facts add more to the overall expense than did duplicate protection reduce it. It costs less money in 2020 to maintain a full collection than it did in 2015 or 2016. There is no estimate involved in this statement. This is pure lived experience.
I'm sorry if this fact goes against your narrative. That doesn't make it any less a fact.
And if you're going to come back with "maybe you were just incredibly unlucky before duplicate protections", sure, that's a possibility. But it would have to have happened for every single set for which it was possible to receive premature duplicates. Yes, that's a possibility, but it's a very remote one. Again, I'm not engaging in napkin math. It simply has been the case that regardless of the Demon Hunter class and new sets, the overall trend is towards having to spend LESS money to maintain a full collection.
None of that reaches the question of whether the game is still too expensive. It simply is not the case that it is more expensive today than in the past.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Now bundles/promos/reward tracks are all "bonus" purchases and are not necessary to move forward in the game (as a P2P person). Sticking with "JUST" pack purchases I ask this:
With only a $100 spending limit (or €82.49) which equates to around 600 packs through the in game store
If you are making $1500 (or €1237.31) a month - and put $100 (or €82.49) of that into the game is that too expensive? If you are making $15,000 (or €12373.12) a month - and put $100 (or €82.49) of that into the game is that too expensive?
Since everyone ignored it last time, I'll just repost something that seems a tiny bit relevant to the discussion.
I'm not speaking from napkin math. I'm not building a spreadsheet. I can look at my bank account and see every 4 months like clockwork since 2014, the expenditure to maintain a full collection in Hearthstone. The fact that we have a new class and thus more legendaries IS relevant. The fact that we don't have adventures and instead have a full extra expansion from packs IS relevant.
Neither of these two facts add more to the overall expense than did duplicate protection reduce it. It costs less money in 2020 to maintain a full collection than it did in 2015 or 2016. There is no estimate involved in this statement. This is pure lived experience.
I'm sorry if this fact goes against your narrative. That doesn't make it any less a fact.
And if you're going to come back with "maybe you were just incredibly unlucky before duplicate protections", sure, that's a possibility. But it would have to have happened for every single set for which it was possible to receive premature duplicates. Yes, that's a possibility, but it's a very remote one. Again, I'm not engaging in napkin math. It simply has been the case that regardless of the Demon Hunter class and new sets, the overall trend is towards having to spend LESS money to maintain a full collection.
None of that reaches the question of whether the game is still too expensive. It simply is not the case that it is more expensive today than in the past.
how much do you spend annually to maintain your complete collection?
The ever-increasing dust costs are just compounded by how piss-poor the game's F2P options are. And the battle pass makes it worse in some ways instead of being a complete improvement. The fact that you can earn more Hearthstone packs by making gold in World of Warcraft for a few hours and converting that into Blizzard Balance instead of grinding XP in Hearthstone is a little ridiculous.
So, the most I've ever spent in the post-duplicate protection era was $220 for one expansion, but that was unusually high, because I had basically been unable to play much of the 4 months before it, so I didn't have any gold saved up at all.
A more reasonable estimate is $150-190 per expansion, which represents either the bigger pre-order or both pre-orders plus one batch of the largest regular pack bundle. Whether or not I get both preorders depends on how many gold packs I'll be able to get, as well as whether or not it's the first expansion of a year. The first expansion of a year is always cheapest, because I will have a few cards I'm confident will never be played in wild that I can disenchant for some extra dust. Occasionally, I can get it down to $80 for the preorder only, if I have a particularly heavy gold / disenchanted dust run.
So, when it all averages out, a liberal estimate is $500 per year. I've had years when it was less, but never more than that. And yes, of course that's a huge amount of money to spend, but it's a trivial amount of my discretionary budget, so it just doesn't matter to me all that much.
EDIT: To give some idea of comparison, it was NEVER possible for me to put a full set together for less than $250 prior to duplicate protection, and it could sometimes break the $300 mark, though usually by then, you could dust craft almost everything.
EDIT 2: I have watched some Runeterra, and so far, I'm not a fan of the priority system. I'm having flashbacks to the original attempts to take Magic the gathering online, and translating the priority stack to a digital game was a nightmare. For game design reasons, I hate the banked mana pool (I believe it's called "spell mana") from the previous turn, and the way they have differing classes of spells that effect the priority stack differently is not something I really want to mess with right now. And if I did want to do something like that, I'd just get back into Magic.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
This Greediness debate is easy to argue either way, mainly because the freemium paradigm has become more disparate. Added freemium game modes grows the F2P player-base and the F2P experience (adventures, BGs, DH etc.). Of course, there are many more price points offered around the game now (Passes, Locked Duels treasures, DH legendaries etc.), and the total cost of experiencing everything seamlessly (w/o the annoying gold grind) has also increased.
Forget about nitpicking the dubious rewards track for a sec. As I see it, Blizzard's duplicate protection; their 'significant generosity' towards what was always a dirty quasi-gacha economy, is merely a ruse to enable the mid-expansion mini-set. And if the 35-card set is anything but ALL Commons/Rares (which it won't, let's be real), I only see the economy worsening in favor of Blizzard and the most invested players.
To answer OP's question; many folks may never admit fault (in this case, spending loads of $$$ on a market-dominant PC game). Understandably, it's harder to do so once folks are committed to so many sunk costs, and this would be the forum of all places I guess. I for one, will admit I hated spending $50 on TGT, regret every penny. But I may justify the other expansions I pre-ordered, and the gold I was able to save for down the road. ... But in the long run, my modest pre-orders don't mean sh*t to the grind in this economy. I hope to see you in Runeterra or Cyberpunk!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Put 'em all in", they said. "You gon' be ballin", they said.
The ever-increasing dust costs are just compounded by how piss-poor the game's F2P options are. And the battle pass makes it worse in some ways instead of being a complete improvement. The fact that you can earn more Hearthstone packs by making gold in World of Warcraft for a few hours and converting that into Blizzard Balance instead of grinding XP in Hearthstone is a little ridiculous.
Dust costs haven't changed - The approximate value is 1:1 dust to gold. Common (Disenchant + 5 / craft -40) Rare (disenchant +20 / craft +100) Epic (disenchant +100 / craft +400) Legendary (disenchant +400 / craft - 1600) A rather odd argument since this is the same F2P or P2P - neither has a bonus compared to the other.
Battle pass - a previous post of mine on this thread (has spoilers) goes into some depth about the new reward track. might be a good read for you.
WoW gold being used for packs - to be more precise it's the wow 'token' that is being used for packs. The token is $20 through the blizzard store. $20 is the equivalent to 15 packs through the hearthstone store. The wow 'token' can be exchanged for 9 packs in hearthstone. So the exchange of the wow gold (token) is LESS than what the (token) itself costs. (side note a wow token on my server in wow goes for 113,532 gold - depending on how you play the game that 'could' take a while to earn in WoW)
Now the fact you can earn packs (and by proxy dust) without playing hearthstone AND without paying money it seems they have made it easier for people to get cards they want/need.
I do have to say it's was refreshing to see a new perspective on the topic, thank you.
I suppose it could be my sunk costs, or it could be . . . observable fact. Definitely one of the two.
@memo333 - No
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
So, the most I've ever spent in the post-duplicate protection era was $220 for one expansion, but that was unusually high, because I had basically been unable to play much of the 4 months before it, so I didn't have any gold saved up at all.
A more reasonable estimate is $150-190 per expansion, which represents either the bigger pre-order or both pre-orders plus one batch of the largest regular pack bundle. Whether or not I get both preorders depends on how many gold packs I'll be able to get, as well as whether or not it's the first expansion of a year. The first expansion of a year is always cheapest, because I will have a few cards I'm confident will never be played in wild that I can disenchant for some extra dust. Occasionally, I can get it down to $80 for the preorder only, if I have a particularly heavy gold / disenchanted dust run.
So, when it all averages out, a liberal estimate is $500 per year. I've had years when it was less, but never more than that. And yes, of course that's a huge amount of money to spend, but it's a trivial amount of my discretionary budget, so it just doesn't matter to me all that much.
EDIT: To give some idea of comparison, it was NEVER possible for me to put a full set together for less than $250 prior to duplicate protection, and it could sometimes break the $300 mark, though usually by then, you could dust craft almost everything.
EDIT 2: I have watched some Runeterra, and so far, I'm not a fan of the priority system. I'm having flashbacks to the original attempts to take Magic the gathering online, and translating the priority stack to a digital game was a nightmare. For game design reasons, I hate the banked mana pool (I believe it's called "spell mana") from the previous turn, and the way they have differing classes of spells that effect the priority stack differently is not something I really want to mess with right now. And if I did want to do something like that, I'd just get back into Magic.
an average of 500 dollars pr year, I thought lawyers was suppose to be smart...
if you cannot see that is insane expensive compared to any other game then I confirm you a blizzard spy
So, the most I've ever spent in the post-duplicate protection era was $220 for one expansion, but that was unusually high, because I had basically been unable to play much of the 4 months before it, so I didn't have any gold saved up at all.
A more reasonable estimate is $150-190 per expansion, which represents either the bigger pre-order or both pre-orders plus one batch of the largest regular pack bundle. Whether or not I get both preorders depends on how many gold packs I'll be able to get, as well as whether or not it's the first expansion of a year. The first expansion of a year is always cheapest, because I will have a few cards I'm confident will never be played in wild that I can disenchant for some extra dust. Occasionally, I can get it down to $80 for the preorder only, if I have a particularly heavy gold / disenchanted dust run.
So, when it all averages out, a liberal estimate is $500 per year. I've had years when it was less, but never more than that. And yes, of course that's a huge amount of money to spend, but it's a trivial amount of my discretionary budget, so it just doesn't matter to me all that much.
EDIT: To give some idea of comparison, it was NEVER possible for me to put a full set together for less than $250 prior to duplicate protection, and it could sometimes break the $300 mark, though usually by then, you could dust craft almost everything.
EDIT 2: I have watched some Runeterra, and so far, I'm not a fan of the priority system. I'm having flashbacks to the original attempts to take Magic the gathering online, and translating the priority stack to a digital game was a nightmare. For game design reasons, I hate the banked mana pool (I believe it's called "spell mana") from the previous turn, and the way they have differing classes of spells that effect the priority stack differently is not something I really want to mess with right now. And if I did want to do something like that, I'd just get back into Magic.
an average of 500 dollars pr year, I thought lawyers was suppose to be smart...
if you cannot see that is insane expensive compared to any other game then I confirm you a blizzard spy
$500 a year on a Free to play game is nothing. That’s less than $42 a month, which is cheaper than getting a daily coffee from Starbucks on the way to work (about $60 a month). Which gives more enjoyment? The coffee or the game? Now if we look at a typical CCG, you’ll spend $800 annually or more as many have 4 sets a year and a booster box will run you around $100, which is only 36 packs. Is Hearthstone expensive? Yes it is. Is it more expensive then It was? No. Is it unrealistically expensive? No.
That's less than $1.50 per day. And that's what he pays to have EVERY CARD IN THE SET. Great for a collector, but absolutely unnecessary for someone who just wants to play some competitive decks. You can spend much, much less and have a great collection, especially if you play often.
But you don't want to hear logic: you just want to whine. And (once again) accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a "Blizzard spy." Man, you're tedious.
First is "HS is expensive AT ALL" vs. "it is getting MORE expensive" to have a collection/competitive decks. -Nobody here is disputing that HS costs money to keep up. For some the amount is spendable for others it is not. But you can't expect to have everything while giving nothing. A f2p game (or CCG) is not sustainable if everyone get's everything for free.
Second is "factual/evidental" arguments vs "I feel that ..." arguments. -If the math (or in shadowrisens case objective, empirical evidence) shows a decrease rather than an increase overall (cost vs. income), you can't argue against it with an "but it feels more expensive, therefore it is". That feel-good-effect is another problem (not denying it exists).
Regarding the new mini expansion: We don't know what it will contain (prob a legendary per class, maybe just neutral legendarys) and it might change the math. BUT we also don't know if/what blizz will do, some sort of legendary quest chain, gives a free legendary, bonus exp or whatever. So for now, we don't know what the mini-exp will bring, don't panic over something that we don't even have info about.
So what is your argument that the game is the same or cheaper if it's not more expensive? Do you have any data that proves playtime and collection completion rates getting better?
I get the feeling there is no data I could provide that would be acceptable to you seeing as you have already been provided with a huge amount in this thread alone (of the empirical, theoretical and narrative kind) that it isn't which you have chosen to ignore.
"The number of legendaries has also not changed much." Really?
Yes, look it up. It's not hard information to find. From Un'goro onwards sets had 23 legendaries (some had more, only Witchwood had less). The last 3 sets have had 25.
So what is your argument that the game is the same or cheaper if it's not more expensive? Do you have any data that proves playtime and collection completion rates getting better?
"The number of legendaries has also not changed much." Really?
If I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel you are sitting at the bottom with a blindfold.
Watch the Hearthstone mathematics last video on youtube you deft and blind guy.
I think you should rewatch it
They are saying it is not getting more expensive, apart from the income of efficient aggro players and casual mode farmers (As a meme player your worst enemies btw ^^' ). Also, did you even read what Daulphas and/or BravoTeam wrote? If so, what is your take on their statements
Once again coming from an F2P point of view! I don't pay anything to play this game...
What I don't have:
a complete collection.
many of the sets complete.
more than 3-4k gold at the start of a new expansion.
a ton of dust to craft with.
What I do have is:
3 decks I have crafted to play wild
1 deck to play standard.
A free legendary every season (possibly 2 with the rewards track)
13+ free packs between expac release and rewards track
No duplicates on rares and legendaries
Do I deserve more because I don't put any money into the game? NO!!!
Do people who spend money deserve more because they pay? YES!!! (however, if it gives them a direct increase to win rate then it's not fair, due to the nature of hearthstones game style)
If you only get your cards from people handing them out for free and don't go out and pay for what you want/need - then it's your choice.
It's not the companies choice if people spend money. It's the companies right and need to charge $$ for their services.
Is the game getting more expensive? I don't know because I haven't done any math or data collection to find out.
But just from my basic understanding of the world - yea - it's getting more expensive inflation is a world wide phenomenon.
Also, it's common business practice for businesses to increase prices on new / updated products (look at cars).
Even MTG raised it's prices over time.
Blizzard hasn't done anything different or worse than any other business out there - in my opinion Gas(petrol) stations extort their customers the worst, Blizzard hasn't done anything like they do.
Does it make the game more expensive - yes
Does it make it harder for some players - yes
Does it make it illegal - no
Does it mean they lied to you - no
If you understand how to run a business then you should be able to apply that knowledge to what's happening here. (I ran a table top game store for 11 years, one of our major products was MTG, so I have a fair understanding of how this works.)
It sucks when the prices don't match expectations - but just like any other purchase you must decide upon in life - you can choose to pay or not. That simple.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
Since everyone ignored it last time, I'll just repost something that seems a tiny bit relevant to the discussion.
I'm not speaking from napkin math. I'm not building a spreadsheet. I can look at my bank account and see every 4 months like clockwork since 2014, the expenditure to maintain a full collection in Hearthstone. The fact that we have a new class and thus more legendaries IS relevant. The fact that we don't have adventures and instead have a full extra expansion from packs IS relevant.
Neither of these two facts add more to the overall expense than did duplicate protection reduce it. It costs less money in 2020 to maintain a full collection than it did in 2015 or 2016. There is no estimate involved in this statement. This is pure lived experience.
I'm sorry if this fact goes against your narrative. That doesn't make it any less a fact.
And if you're going to come back with "maybe you were just incredibly unlucky before duplicate protections", sure, that's a possibility. But it would have to have happened for every single set for which it was possible to receive premature duplicates. Yes, that's a possibility, but it's a very remote one. Again, I'm not engaging in napkin math. It simply has been the case that regardless of the Demon Hunter class and new sets, the overall trend is towards having to spend LESS money to maintain a full collection.
None of that reaches the question of whether the game is still too expensive. It simply is not the case that it is more expensive today than in the past.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Shadowrisen brings up a good point...
What determines if the game is "too expensive"?
The cost of a pack is roughly $1.50 or €1.25
Now bundles/promos/reward tracks are all "bonus" purchases and are not necessary to move forward in the game (as a P2P person). Sticking with "JUST" pack purchases I ask this:
With only a $100 spending limit (or €82.49) which equates to around 600 packs through the in game store
If you are making $1500 (or €1237.31) a month - and put $100 (or €82.49) of that into the game is that too expensive?
If you are making $15,000 (or €12373.12) a month - and put $100 (or €82.49) of that into the game is that too expensive?
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
how much do you spend annually to maintain your complete collection?
The ever-increasing dust costs are just compounded by how piss-poor the game's F2P options are. And the battle pass makes it worse in some ways instead of being a complete improvement. The fact that you can earn more Hearthstone packs by making gold in World of Warcraft for a few hours and converting that into Blizzard Balance instead of grinding XP in Hearthstone is a little ridiculous.
You guys are talking about MtG, but have you seen how generous Runeterra is?
Tekken player
@3nnu1
So, the most I've ever spent in the post-duplicate protection era was $220 for one expansion, but that was unusually high, because I had basically been unable to play much of the 4 months before it, so I didn't have any gold saved up at all.
A more reasonable estimate is $150-190 per expansion, which represents either the bigger pre-order or both pre-orders plus one batch of the largest regular pack bundle. Whether or not I get both preorders depends on how many gold packs I'll be able to get, as well as whether or not it's the first expansion of a year. The first expansion of a year is always cheapest, because I will have a few cards I'm confident will never be played in wild that I can disenchant for some extra dust. Occasionally, I can get it down to $80 for the preorder only, if I have a particularly heavy gold / disenchanted dust run.
So, when it all averages out, a liberal estimate is $500 per year. I've had years when it was less, but never more than that. And yes, of course that's a huge amount of money to spend, but it's a trivial amount of my discretionary budget, so it just doesn't matter to me all that much.
EDIT: To give some idea of comparison, it was NEVER possible for me to put a full set together for less than $250 prior to duplicate protection, and it could sometimes break the $300 mark, though usually by then, you could dust craft almost everything.
EDIT 2: I have watched some Runeterra, and so far, I'm not a fan of the priority system. I'm having flashbacks to the original attempts to take Magic the gathering online, and translating the priority stack to a digital game was a nightmare. For game design reasons, I hate the banked mana pool (I believe it's called "spell mana") from the previous turn, and the way they have differing classes of spells that effect the priority stack differently is not something I really want to mess with right now. And if I did want to do something like that, I'd just get back into Magic.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
This Greediness debate is easy to argue either way, mainly because the freemium paradigm has become more disparate. Added freemium game modes grows the F2P player-base and the F2P experience (adventures, BGs, DH etc.). Of course, there are many more price points offered around the game now (Passes, Locked Duels treasures, DH legendaries etc.), and the total cost of experiencing everything seamlessly (w/o the annoying gold grind) has also increased.
Forget about nitpicking the dubious rewards track for a sec. As I see it, Blizzard's duplicate protection; their 'significant generosity' towards what was always a dirty quasi-gacha economy, is merely a ruse to enable the mid-expansion mini-set. And if the 35-card set is anything but ALL Commons/Rares (which it won't, let's be real), I only see the economy worsening in favor of Blizzard and the most invested players.
To answer OP's question; many folks may never admit fault (in this case, spending loads of $$$ on a market-dominant PC game). Understandably, it's harder to do so once folks are committed to so many sunk costs, and this would be the forum of all places I guess. I for one, will admit I hated spending $50 on TGT, regret every penny. But I may justify the other expansions I pre-ordered, and the gold I was able to save for down the road. ... But in the long run, my modest pre-orders don't mean sh*t to the grind in this economy. I hope to see you in Runeterra or Cyberpunk!
"Put 'em all in", they said. "You gon' be ballin", they said.
Dust costs haven't changed - The approximate value is 1:1 dust to gold.
Common (Disenchant + 5 / craft -40)
Rare (disenchant +20 / craft +100)
Epic (disenchant +100 / craft +400)
Legendary (disenchant +400 / craft - 1600)
A rather odd argument since this is the same F2P or P2P - neither has a bonus compared to the other.
Battle pass - a previous post of mine on this thread (has spoilers) goes into some depth about the new reward track. might be a good read for you.
WoW gold being used for packs - to be more precise it's the wow 'token' that is being used for packs. The token is $20 through the blizzard store.
$20 is the equivalent to 15 packs through the hearthstone store.
The wow 'token' can be exchanged for 9 packs in hearthstone.
So the exchange of the wow gold (token) is LESS than what the (token) itself costs. (side note a wow token on my server in wow goes for 113,532 gold - depending on how you play the game that 'could' take a while to earn in WoW)
Now the fact you can earn packs (and by proxy dust) without playing hearthstone AND without paying money it seems they have made it easier for people to get cards they want/need.
I do have to say it's was refreshing to see a new perspective on the topic, thank you.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
Just stop playing and stop buying stuff until they fix this f**** shi****¡!
go face!
I suppose it could be my sunk costs, or it could be . . . observable fact. Definitely one of the two.
@memo333 - No
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
an average of 500 dollars pr year, I thought lawyers was suppose to be smart...
if you cannot see that is insane expensive compared to any other game then I confirm you a blizzard spy
$500 a year on a Free to play game is nothing. That’s less than $42 a month, which is cheaper than getting a daily coffee from Starbucks on the way to work (about $60 a month). Which gives more enjoyment? The coffee or the game? Now if we look at a typical CCG, you’ll spend $800 annually or more as many have 4 sets a year and a booster box will run you around $100, which is only 36 packs. Is Hearthstone expensive? Yes it is. Is it more expensive then It was? No. Is it unrealistically expensive? No.
That's less than $1.50 per day. And that's what he pays to have EVERY CARD IN THE SET. Great for a collector, but absolutely unnecessary for someone who just wants to play some competitive decks. You can spend much, much less and have a great collection, especially if you play often.
But you don't want to hear logic: you just want to whine. And (once again) accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a "Blizzard spy." Man, you're tedious.
it is a huge amount of money, even compared to blizzards other games
I see two seperate issues in this threat:
First is "HS is expensive AT ALL" vs. "it is getting MORE expensive" to have a collection/competitive decks.
-Nobody here is disputing that HS costs money to keep up. For some the amount is spendable for others it is not. But you can't expect to have everything while giving nothing. A f2p game (or CCG) is not sustainable if everyone get's everything for free.
Second is "factual/evidental" arguments vs "I feel that ..." arguments.
-If the math (or in shadowrisens case objective, empirical evidence) shows a decrease rather than an increase overall (cost vs. income), you can't argue against it with an "but it feels more expensive, therefore it is". That feel-good-effect is another problem (not denying it exists).
Regarding the new mini expansion: We don't know what it will contain (prob a legendary per class, maybe just neutral legendarys) and it might change the math. BUT we also don't know if/what blizz will do, some sort of legendary quest chain, gives a free legendary, bonus exp or whatever. So for now, we don't know what the mini-exp will bring, don't panic over something that we don't even have info about.
What qualifies as a 'huge amount of money' is relative. If he is a lawyer, it's probably about 4 hours pay for a whole year of entertainment.
The only cancer in Hearthstone is its community.
I get the feeling there is no data I could provide that would be acceptable to you seeing as you have already been provided with a huge amount in this thread alone (of the empirical, theoretical and narrative kind) that it isn't which you have chosen to ignore.
Yes, look it up. It's not hard information to find. From Un'goro onwards sets had 23 legendaries (some had more, only Witchwood had less). The last 3 sets have had 25.
The only cancer in Hearthstone is its community.