It would be hilarious if Blizzard closed down Wild due to a lack of engagement and TallStranger had nothing to play.
In all seriousness any Wild player who doesn’t want other players getting years old content for cheap or for free purely because they themselves have paid/earned them are being selfish and their opinions should be ignored in that regard. I get that it might feel bad, but it is a completely self serving mindset that has no place in video games.
How very mature of you: hoping that someone else's enjoyment of the game is ruined. I guess we have different ideas of what is "hilarious." And, just for the record, Wild isn't in any danger of being closed down. While nowhere near as popular as Standard, it still has a very sizable base. Per one source, there are about half as many people playing Wild as playing Standard. And given that there's a sizable number of people who play both, there's absolutely no reason for Blizzard to do so. Sorry to spoil your petty little vendetta.
It's also very typical of the spoiled, entitled mentality you demonstrate in most of your posts to insist that opinions you disagree with should be ignored. That's usually a sign that you know you're not able to win the argument, so you want people to just ignore basic logic and facts.
It would be hilarious if Blizzard closed down Wild due to a lack of engagement and TallStranger had nothing to play.
In all seriousness any Wild player who doesn’t want other players getting years old content for cheap or for free purely because they themselves have paid/earned them are being selfish and their opinions should be ignored in that regard. I get that it might feel bad, but it is a completely self serving mindset that has no place in video games.
How very mature of you: hoping that someone else's enjoyment of the game is ruined. I guess we have different ideas of what is "hilarious." And, just for the record, Wild isn't in any danger of being closed down. While nowhere near as popular as Standard, it still has a very sizable base. Per one source, there are about half as many people playing Wild as playing Standard. And given that there's a sizable number of people who play both, there's absolutely no reason for Blizzard to do so. Sorry to spoil your petty little vendetta.
It's also very typical of the spoiled, entitled mentality you demonstrate in most of your posts to insist that opinions you disagree with should be ignored. That's usually a sign that you know you're not able to win the argument, so you want people to just ignore basic logic and facts.
You argument isn’t based on ‘logic and facts’, it’s based on a warped, selfish view of a digital economy.
Just think about what you’re actually saying and how absurd it sounds. Blizzard shouldn’t give away content that they released 5 years ago because a small group of people will be upset that they have paid for it? Do you think that is a rational emotion to have in that situation?
There’s no difference in something being free or cheap in this context. The idea is to make it accessible.
Why would it matter if new players are given Naxx for free? How would this effect current Wild players any more than if the newer player had to pay £5 for it, or £15 or whatever is costs currently. Like why would anyone think “I’m happy with a newer player paying £5, but it isn’t fair on ME if they get it for!” They are completely unaffected either way. The only difference is that some poor kid somewhere has an extra 5 quid in their pocket instead of Blizzard.
There is a huge difference between something being free vs. being cheap. I fail to see how you don't understand that.
There are a couple ways one could answer your "Why would it matter if new players are given Naxx for free?" question. Unfortunately, all those responses get us into the same tedious argument that sprouts up here at Hearthpwn periodically regarding the complaint that "Hearthstone is too expensive." Rather than reopen an utterly fruitless argument, I will simply say that I believe people should be willing to pay for things they believe to be of value. Such a belief is, in fact, the fundamental basis of the market economy. If you think that playing Wild is something you want to do because it will increase your enjoyment of the game, then you should be willing to pay (either in real money or game currency) for it.
In addition, giving these cards away will, in fact, reduce Blizzard's profits (if only by a modest amount). Because companies don't like to see that occur, the company will most definitely recoup these lost profits somewhere else in the game, probably by increasing the cost of new cards. That WILL affect me, if only modestly. You fail to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The costs of providing these cards for free will be borne by the entire community. I gain nothing by having more players in Wild. But you're asking me to, in essence, pay for something and get nothing. That is unfair.
There’s no difference in something being free or discounted in this context. Ie Wild players being affected by it.
and I’m not saying they SHOULD give Naxx away for free, they should do whatever is best for the game. I’m saying that your emotions shouldn’t be affected by either situation.
As for the rest of your post, it’s all completely irrelevant as Blizzard will ultimately do whatever is more profitable, and you, a random person on an internet forum, don’t have a clue what that actually is. So trying to pretend you know that things being free vs discounted would bring in a lesser profit looks a bit silly.
Blizzard give plenty of packs away for free every week, do you think they do this to make less money?
There’s no difference in something being free or cheap in this context. The idea is to make it accessible.
Why would it matter if new players are given Naxx for free? How would this effect current Wild players any more than if the newer player had to pay £5 for it, or £15 or whatever is costs currently. Like why would anyone think “I’m happy with a newer player paying £5, but it isn’t fair on ME if they get it for!” They are completely unaffected either way. The only difference is that some poor kid somewhere has an extra 5 quid in their pocket instead of Blizzard.
There is a huge difference between something being free vs. being cheap. I fail to see how you don't understand that.
There are a couple ways one could answer your "Why would it matter if new players are given Naxx for free?" question. Unfortunately, all those responses get us into the same tedious argument that sprouts up here at Hearthpwn periodically regarding the complaint that "Hearthstone is too expensive." Rather than reopen an utterly fruitless argument, I will simply say that I believe people should be willing to pay for things they believe to be of value. Such a belief is, in fact, the fundamental basis of the market economy. If you think that playing Wild is something you want to do because it will increase your enjoyment of the game, then you should be willing to pay (either in real money or game currency) for it.
In addition, giving these cards away will, in fact, reduce Blizzard's profits (if only by a modest amount). Because companies don't like to see that occur, the company will most definitely recoup these lost profits somewhere else in the game, probably by increasing the cost of new cards. That WILL affect me, if only modestly. You fail to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The costs of providing these cards for free will be borne by the entire community. I gain nothing by having more players in Wild. But you're asking me to, in essence, pay for something and get nothing. That is unfair.
There’s no difference in something being free or discounted in this context. Ie Wild players being affected by it.
and I’m not saying they SHOULD give Naxx away for free, they should do whatever is best for the game. I’m saying that your emotions shouldn’t be affected by either situation.
As for the rest of your post, it’s all completely irrelevant as Blizzard will ultimately do whatever is more profitable, and you, a random person on an internet forum, don’t have a clue what that actually is. So trying to pretend you know that things being free vs discounted would bring in a lesser profit looks a bit silly.
Blizzard give plenty of packs away for free every week, do you think they do this to make less money?
I'm going to respond to both your replies at once.
1) "warped, selfish view of the digital economy"? News flash: there is no fundamental difference between the digital economy and the "real" economy on this issue. Blizzard should no more give away Wild cards "because they're old" than Hasbro should give away Monopoly because it's old. In both cases, the same principle applies: if you value something, you need to be willing to pay for it. Yet you stand there asking for a handout, operating under the delusion that you're doing Blizzard or Wild players a favor by coming over. You're the one with a warped, selfish view: "Waaaa, I want stuff but don't want to pay for it." I'm willing to let the market set the price: you're not. So who's being irrational?
(And let me stop you before you spew out some nonsense about how the cost of producing old HS cards is essentially zero while the cost of producing a copy of Monopoly is small. This argument is used all the time and is completely irrelevant. The price a good should sell for has little to do with the cost of production. The price of a good is set by market demand. If I can produce something for $1 but sell it for $1,000, then $1,000 is a "fair" price. You may not like the fact that I just made a $999 profit, but I am most certainly entitled to it.)
2) "and I’m not saying they SHOULD give Naxx away for free." Actually, you pretty much are. To quote you from earlier in this thread, "Wild cards should be discounted when they rotate and eventually become free (or extremely cheap) the older they become." Since Naxx is one of the oldest expansions out there, it pretty much falls into this category. If you can't keep your own argument straight....
3) "So trying to pretend you know that things being free vs discounted would bring in a lesser profit looks a bit silly." This might be the most laughable of your statements. I don't need to know anything about Blizzard's profit margins to know that that giving cards away for free will bring in (wait for it) ZERO dollars. On the other hand, charging for them will bring in (gasp) MORE than zero dollars. And, by the way, if they did give away Wild sets for free, it would cost them substantially if (as they would have to do) people with Wild collections could dust them and just play with the free cards. I'm probably sitting on, what, 75k dust in Wild cards? At a minimum? Let me dust that but still play Wild and I won't need to spend money on another expansion pack for years to come. And there are lots of people like me. That's a lot of money out of Blizzard's pocket. As I said, the company will respond by increasing the price of other things. So all of us are going to have to pay more because you want to play Wild but don't want to pay what it costs. Entitled much?
Blizzard should no more give away Wild cards "because they're old" than Hasbro should give away Monopoly because it's old. In both cases, the same principle applies: if you value something, you need to be willing to pay for it.
This doesn’t make any sense. Hasbro (I assume) have no reason to give away Monopoly for free.
Blizzard do have a reason to give away things for free as we see them do this all the time. As a F2P game the model is based around hooking players in by giving them things for free. You not understanding this doesn't give me hope for the rest of this conversation.
Yet you stand there asking for a handout, operating under the delusion that you're doing Blizzard or Wild players a favor by coming over.
No idea what you’re even going on about with this tbh. If I came over to Wild it would purely be for my own interests, I've never stated or inferred that I would ever play Wild to do anybody else a favour, why would I?
I also haven't asked for any handouts - this is a stock comment I see a lot from your ilk ('entitled' is another one, you guys really love that one) but it rarely applies to the conversations I see. Plus I've already purchased all of the expansions from the first 3 or so years of the game. I'm stating how I would like to see things done because I believe the game would be better off for it.
You're the one with a warped, selfish view: "Waaaa, I want stuff but don't want to pay for it." I'm willing to let the market set the price: you're not. So who's being irrational?
Again, no idea what you’re going on about with this either, I think you may have gotten a little trigger happy and exited when making your post. Either that or you’re suffering from a bout of big brain tourettes, just spewing out stuff that you think sounds clever. “Let the market decide! Now that sounds like I know what I’m talking about!”
I’ve already told you that I’m not saying Blizzard SHOULD give old content away free. Blizzard should do whatever is best for the game and their pockets. What I’m saying is that giving stuff away for free, IN A FREE TO PLAY GAME, could be what is best for the game and Blizzards pockets.
(And let me stop you before you spew out some nonsense about how the cost of producing old HS cards is essentially zero while the cost of producing a copy of Monopoly is small. This argument is used all the time and is completely irrelevant. The price a good should sell for has little to do with the cost of production. The price of a good is set by market demand. If I can produce something for $1 but sell it for $1,000, then $1,000 is a "fair" price. You may not like the fact that I just made a $999 profit, but I am most certainly entitled to it.)
Ooooh you stop me right there, big boy. Again though, more big brain tourettes. None of this relates to anything I’ve said.
"and I’m not saying they SHOULD give Naxx away for free." Actually, you pretty much are. To quote you from earlier in this thread, "Wild cards should be discounted when they rotate and eventually become free (or extremely cheap) the older they become." Since Naxx is one of the oldest expansions out there, it pretty much falls into this category. If you can't keep your own argument straight....
Well I mean even in the quote there I haven’t said that they SHOULD ever be free (see the part in brackets), you’re also missing the fact that despite Naxx being the oldest expansion, it will still get older, so if we’re not at a stage yet where it being free (or extremely cheap) makes sense we may get there in the future.
But all told that was a post earlier in the thread where I threw out my personal view of how I would do things. The idea being that the older an expansion is the less interest it would receive and therefore the less worth it would have. At some point it potentially becomes better from a business perspective to just give things of limited worth away for free - we see this happen all the time.
As I’ve said though, in reality Blizzard should do whatever is best for the game and their profit, and if what I suggested isn’t best for the game or their profit then they shouldn’t do it.
"So trying to pretend you know that things being free vs discounted would bring in a lesser profit looks a bit silly." This might be the most laughable of your statements. I don't need to know anything about Blizzard's profit margins to know that that giving cards away for free will bring in (wait for it) ZERO dollars.
You’re very confident for someone who struggles to grasp even basic concepts. The product being given away for free will not directly bring in any profit but it can lead to players making other purchases. For example a player who has never given Wild a second thought is given Naxx, they think “Cool, I can go try Kel and Loatheb out in Wild” which could lead to them buying other Wild expansions, recommending the mode to friends, or posting about it on an internet forum... This is a really common tactic so I’m amazed you aren’t aware of it, especially considering we’re currently discussing a free to play game.
And, by the way, if they did give away Wild sets for free, it would cost them substantially if (as they would have to do) people with Wild collections could dust them and just play with the free cards. I'm probably sitting on, what, 75k dust in Wild cards? At a minimum? Let me dust that but still play Wild and I won't need to spend money on another expansion pack for years to come. And there are lots of people like me. That's a lot of money out of Blizzard's pocket. As I said, the company will respond by increasing the price of other things. So all of us are going to have to pay more because you want to play Wild but don't want to pay what it costs.
Well no you already have bought old expansions I assume so you wouldn’t be able to get them for free if it ever came to that. The 'deal' would only be available to players who haven’t already purchased them. And it would likely be very easy for Blizzard to make old expansions undustable for players who got them free so any worry about abusing dust can be alleviated.
If you ask me the Wild/Standard split should have never happened. It was both a cheap cop out from a design standpoint (Standard cards don't need to be that fresh or interesting to see play because of the artificial scarcity of rotation) and money grubbing (rotation also inflates the value of Standard cards). So everything should be Wild ideally, therefore I approve of getting more people into Wild on principle. And more attention and balancing happening in Wild.
And as someone who played since Closed Beta I do not mind newer players getting access to those cards. Provided ofc the veterans get some benefits too. I would be fully cool with, say, Wild cards that are three to four years old (so 1-2 years removed from Standard) were given completely free. But make it like the Core set, undisenchantable and let us DE our own copies. That way both newbies and veterans walk away happy. Meanwhile greater engagement in Wild and with HS in general could benefit Blizzard too since Standard packs and those of newer Wild expansions would not be free. Yet those would contain critical cards and so inspire purchases. Alternatively older packs can be cheaper or older cards easier to craft. Again that way everyone benefits, arguably Blizzard too. However discounts should never be close to 75% since that allows exploits, even lower discounts like 25-50% do but lesser ones.
You've now shifted your argument (if one can call asking for free stuff an argument) from "this is what I want so that I can have fun playing Wild" to "Blizzard should do this if it's in the company's best interest." The first position is at least understandable: you're asking for something that is in your own personal interest (though I will point out that you doing so is just as "selfish" as me arguing against it). You want to play Wild but (by your own admission) you don't want to spend the "hundreds or thousands of pounds" required to do so. So you want Blizzard to give you stuff so you can have more fun.
Your new position is so obvious as to be self-evident, but it also essentially invalidates your entire position. Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that giving away old expansions is in its best interest, since it has not done so. It has periodically offered discounts on Wild packs, but has shown no inclination to go beyond that into full-on handout mode. The company is, apparently, taking the "big brain" approach of insisting that people pay for what they want. Which is what I've been arguing for from Day 1.
Main problem with getting into wild is that your only reasonable way to get cards is crafting them. To make a standard deck, you buy X packs, look at what you got, dust duplicates\unwanted cards, craft the stuff you need. If you try to do this with wild packs... you'll get a lot of cards you'll never play anywhere, aka dust. No reasonable person will buy a 50 TGT packs to hunt for relevant rares\epics\legendary because there is little to none.
To make wild more accessible we need to either 1) reduce the crafting cost of wild cards 2) reduce gold\$ cost of wild packs 3) Improve wild packs somehow. Why would Blizzard do this? A lower price for something may result in more purchases and more profits.
My perfect solution would be #3 - Make bad\outdated epics\legendaries unopenable. Many legendaries have zero value beyond being collectible. Lets look at some ancient set - The Boogeymonster, Soggoth the Slitherer, Mukla, Tyrant of the Vale , Princess Huhuran... Those are not legendaries! Not by power level, not by uniqueness, not by anything but the symbol
You've now shifted your argument (if one can call asking for free stuff an argument) from "this is what I want so that I can have fun playing Wild" to "Blizzard should do this if it's in the company's best interest." The first position is at least understandable: you're asking for something that is in your own personal interest (though I will point out that you doing so is just as "selfish" as me arguing against it). You want to play Wild but (by your own admission) you don't want to spend the "hundreds or thousands of pounds" required to do so. So you want Blizzard to give you stuff so you can have more fun.
Your new position is so obvious as to be self-evident, but it also essentially invalidates your entire position. Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that giving away old expansions is in its best interest, since it has not done so. It has periodically offered discounts on Wild packs, but has shown no inclination to go beyond that into full-on handout mode. The company is, apparently, taking the "big brain" approach of insisting that people pay for what they want. Which is what I've been arguing for from Day 1.
And you aren't tedious?
You've now shifted your argument (if one can call asking for free stuff an argument) from "this is what I want so that I can have fun playing Wild" to "Blizzard should do this if it's in the company's best interest."
I haven't shifted any argument, you're talking about 2 completely independent topics that I have answered - the first is my personal wish for what I want, the second is a response to your absurd post which made several claims that Blizzard should not give away Wild content for free.
The first position is at least understandable: you're asking for something that is in your own personal interest (though I will point out that you doing so is just as "selfish" as me arguing against it). You want to play Wild but (by your own admission) you don't want to spend the "hundreds or thousands of pounds" required to do so. So you want Blizzard to give you stuff so you can have more fun.
How is me wanting something for free selfish? Do you actually know the meaning of the word?
I'm not demanding I'm given anything for free. I'm not saying I'm entitled to anything for free. I'm not wanting to be given something for free at the cost of anybody else. I'm merely stating what I personally wish for (older expansions becoming cheaper over time and eventually free [or extremely cheap]).
The reason I'm claiming you are selfish is because you don't want other people getting things for free because you have already paid for them. I'd say that's pretty much the dictionary definition.
Your new position is so obvious as to be self-evident, but it also essentially invalidates your entire position.
Again, my 'new position' is me expanding onto a new topic in response to you and what you said. I'm struggling to see how you don't understand what is going on here. I haven't changed my initial position, I still want free Wild cards, why wouldn't I.
Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that giving away old expansions is in its best interest, since it has not done so. It has periodically offered discounts on Wild packs, but has shown no inclination to go beyond that into full-on handout mode.
This is just silly. Blizzard have constantly re-evaluated almost every aspect of the game over the last half decade. Last year would you have said the same reply to someone asking for a Battle Pass type deal? You would have looked pretty stupid if you had.
I would be pretty surprised if Blizzard go infinitely without changing how Wild is monetised, whether or not they do anything like I wish, or go a different route entirely I'll have to wait and see.
I would be pretty surprised if Blizzard go infinitely without changing how Wild is monetised, whether or not they do anything like I wish, or go a different route entirely I'll have to wait and see.
I bet that we will see some sort of rerelease of Nax soonish. Just look at classic WoW and their strategy.
Just half the dust for crafting cards in Wild sets.
Would anybody really object to this?
Perhaps the shareholders. But somehow I feel Wild is barely a dent in their wallets.
Unleash the potential. Wild could match Standard if Blizzard wanted it to.
I can say some from personal experience: I have tried to introduce friends to Hearthstone, who quit after a short amount of time because they felt Standard was too basic; a "demo version" of the game, but Wild was too expensive to get into.
Just half the dust for crafting cards in Wild sets.
Would anybody really object to this?
Perhaps the shareholders. But somehow I feel Wild is barely a dent in their wallets.
Unleash the potential. Wild could match Standard if Blizzard wanted it to.
I can say some from personal experience: I have tried to introduce friends to Hearthstone, who quit after a short amount of time because they felt Standard was too basic; a "demo version" of the game, but Wild was too expensive to get into.
Just half the dust for crafting cards in Wild sets.
Would anybody really object to this?
Perhaps the shareholders. But somehow I feel Wild is barely a dent in their wallets.
Unleash the potential. Wild could match Standard if Blizzard wanted it to.
I can say some from personal experience: I have tried to introduce friends to Hearthstone, who quit after a short amount of time because they felt Standard was too basic; a "demo version" of the game, but Wild was too expensive to get into.
Problem if you do that is :
1) people who paid full money/dust will be angry. I'm still angry at the duplicate protection, they could have made a nice gesture to all of us fools who paid trash packs when the game was still growing, but they didn't. And if they introduce half dust cards, same story, us veteran players who funded the game get fucked.
2) many people will wait for the wild rotation before they craft anything, this will heavily promote Wild which is good for the community, but also heavily discourage people from playing Standard which is very bad for Blizzard.
Just half the dust for crafting cards in Wild sets.
Would anybody really object to this?
Perhaps the shareholders. But somehow I feel Wild is barely a dent in their wallets.
Unleash the potential. Wild could match Standard if Blizzard wanted it to.
I can say some from personal experience: I have tried to introduce friends to Hearthstone, who quit after a short amount of time because they felt Standard was too basic; a "demo version" of the game, but Wild was too expensive to get into.
Problem if you do that is :
1) people who paid full money/dust will be angry. I'm still angry at the duplicate protection, they could have made a nice gesture to all of us fools who paid trash packs when the game was still growing, but they didn't. And if they introduce half dust cards, same story, us veteran players who funded the game get fucked.
2) many people will wait for the wild rotation before they craft anything, this will heavily promote Wild which is good for the community, but also heavily discourage people from playing Standard which is very bad for Blizzard.
So, you are against any measures that make the game cheaper unless you will be compensated for that? Are you for real?
Just half the dust for crafting cards in Wild sets.
Would anybody really object to this?
Perhaps the shareholders. But somehow I feel Wild is barely a dent in their wallets.
Unleash the potential. Wild could match Standard if Blizzard wanted it to.
I can say some from personal experience: I have tried to introduce friends to Hearthstone, who quit after a short amount of time because they felt Standard was too basic; a "demo version" of the game, but Wild was too expensive to get into.
Problem if you do that is :
1) people who paid full money/dust will be angry. I'm still angry at the duplicate protection, they could have made a nice gesture to all of us fools who paid trash packs when the game was still growing, but they didn't. And if they introduce half dust cards, same story, us veteran players who funded the game get fucked.
2) many people will wait for the wild rotation before they craft anything, this will heavily promote Wild which is good for the community, but also heavily discourage people from playing Standard which is very bad for Blizzard.
Speaking as a veteran player who funded the game, I will be in no way fucked if Wild dust costs get adjusted. I already have those cards; their costs are immaterial to me. I use them for Brawls and Duels, but I have very little interest in Wild as a format, because there are a lot of cards that make me think "I'm glad that rotated so I don't have to deal with it anymore."
To your second point, I think you're overestimating the number of people who make their Gameplay Mode decisions based on relative costs of cards. Wild gameplay is not the same vibe as Standard, and even though I have a very large Wild collection, I play Standard pretty much exclusively. Will there be some people who go "Oh cool, cheap cards"? Sure, of course there will be some. Does that add up to "heavily discourage people from playing Standard"? I think that's a real stretch. There will always be excitement around the newest set, for the simple reason that it's new and interesting. And you can use those new cards in Wild too, so it's not like that would affect Blizzard's bottom line.
Just half the dust for crafting cards in Wild sets.
Would anybody really object to this?
Perhaps the shareholders. But somehow I feel Wild is barely a dent in their wallets.
Unleash the potential. Wild could match Standard if Blizzard wanted it to.
I can say some from personal experience: I have tried to introduce friends to Hearthstone, who quit after a short amount of time because they felt Standard was too basic; a "demo version" of the game, but Wild was too expensive to get into.
Problem if you do that is :
1) people who paid full money/dust will be angry. I'm still angry at the duplicate protection, they could have made a nice gesture to all of us fools who paid trash packs when the game was still growing, but they didn't. And if they introduce half dust cards, same story, us veteran players who funded the game get fucked.
2) many people will wait for the wild rotation before they craft anything, this will heavily promote Wild which is good for the community, but also heavily discourage people from playing Standard which is very bad for Blizzard.
So, you are against any measures that make the game cheaper unless you will be compensated for that? Are you for real?
Are YOU for real ? I am totally for duplicate protection and totally for cheaper wild cards. I just explained why I and other veterans would be angry if that happens without compensation for us, and why Blizzard wouldn't let that happens. If you can't understand this then we simply cannot discuss since you are 100 points below my IQ bucket, different species can't communicate.
What about the other things I said ? Do you even care what I said about blizzard and discouraging people from playing standard, or I just hurt your feelings cause you're too broke to craft wild cards ?
Blizzard will never cut in half the cost of wild cards. They do not care about veterans that's for sure, they despite those who built this game and focus exclusively on new players, so you don't have to worry about that, but they do care very much about standard being the most important game mode.
Would you really craft any standard legendary for 1600 dust, if you could wait 2 years and craft it for 800 dust and play it in a more fun format ? I know I wouldn't. I wouldn't even touch standard anymore.
Speaking as a veteran player who funded the game, I will be in no way fucked if Wild dust costs get adjusted. I already have those cards; their costs are immaterial to me. I use them for Brawls and Duels, but I have very little interest in Wild as a format, because there are a lot of cards that make me think "I'm glad that rotated so I don't have to deal with it anymore."
You have no interest in the Wild format, your opinion is pretty clearly biased. You would be in every way fucked if you cared about Wild.
"I already have those cards their costs are immaterial to me" makes no sense to me. Cost is cost. Money is money. If you pay 10 bucks for something and it later costs 5 bucks, you got fucked. It was your decision, yes, it's good that it costs 5 instead of 10, yes, but you got fucked.
To your second point, I think you're overestimating the number of people who make their Gameplay Mode decisions based on relative costs of cards.
I think you're underestimating it.
People literally wait for the meta to settle before they craft anything. They care about dust more than anything. Of course not everyone would care, as you stated, not everybody cares about Wild and there will always be people who want to experiment new sets in standard, but I believe the impact would be significant enough to deter Blizzard from doing it.
How very mature of you: hoping that someone else's enjoyment of the game is ruined. I guess we have different ideas of what is "hilarious." And, just for the record, Wild isn't in any danger of being closed down. While nowhere near as popular as Standard, it still has a very sizable base. Per one source, there are about half as many people playing Wild as playing Standard. And given that there's a sizable number of people who play both, there's absolutely no reason for Blizzard to do so. Sorry to spoil your petty little vendetta.
It's also very typical of the spoiled, entitled mentality you demonstrate in most of your posts to insist that opinions you disagree with should be ignored. That's usually a sign that you know you're not able to win the argument, so you want people to just ignore basic logic and facts.
You argument isn’t based on ‘logic and facts’, it’s based on a warped, selfish view of a digital economy.
Just think about what you’re actually saying and how absurd it sounds. Blizzard shouldn’t give away content that they released 5 years ago because a small group of people will be upset that they have paid for it? Do you think that is a rational emotion to have in that situation?
There’s no difference in something being free or discounted in this context. Ie Wild players being affected by it.
and I’m not saying they SHOULD give Naxx away for free, they should do whatever is best for the game. I’m saying that your emotions shouldn’t be affected by either situation.
As for the rest of your post, it’s all completely irrelevant as Blizzard will ultimately do whatever is more profitable, and you, a random person on an internet forum, don’t have a clue what that actually is. So trying to pretend you know that things being free vs discounted would bring in a lesser profit looks a bit silly.
Blizzard give plenty of packs away for free every week, do you think they do this to make less money?
I'm going to respond to both your replies at once.
1) "warped, selfish view of the digital economy"? News flash: there is no fundamental difference between the digital economy and the "real" economy on this issue. Blizzard should no more give away Wild cards "because they're old" than Hasbro should give away Monopoly because it's old. In both cases, the same principle applies: if you value something, you need to be willing to pay for it. Yet you stand there asking for a handout, operating under the delusion that you're doing Blizzard or Wild players a favor by coming over. You're the one with a warped, selfish view: "Waaaa, I want stuff but don't want to pay for it." I'm willing to let the market set the price: you're not. So who's being irrational?
(And let me stop you before you spew out some nonsense about how the cost of producing old HS cards is essentially zero while the cost of producing a copy of Monopoly is small. This argument is used all the time and is completely irrelevant. The price a good should sell for has little to do with the cost of production. The price of a good is set by market demand. If I can produce something for $1 but sell it for $1,000, then $1,000 is a "fair" price. You may not like the fact that I just made a $999 profit, but I am most certainly entitled to it.)
2) "and I’m not saying they SHOULD give Naxx away for free." Actually, you pretty much are. To quote you from earlier in this thread, "Wild cards should be discounted when they rotate and eventually become free (or extremely cheap) the older they become." Since Naxx is one of the oldest expansions out there, it pretty much falls into this category. If you can't keep your own argument straight....
3) "So trying to pretend you know that things being free vs discounted would bring in a lesser profit looks a bit silly." This might be the most laughable of your statements. I don't need to know anything about Blizzard's profit margins to know that that giving cards away for free will bring in (wait for it) ZERO dollars. On the other hand, charging for them will bring in (gasp) MORE than zero dollars. And, by the way, if they did give away Wild sets for free, it would cost them substantially if (as they would have to do) people with Wild collections could dust them and just play with the free cards. I'm probably sitting on, what, 75k dust in Wild cards? At a minimum? Let me dust that but still play Wild and I won't need to spend money on another expansion pack for years to come. And there are lots of people like me. That's a lot of money out of Blizzard's pocket. As I said, the company will respond by increasing the price of other things. So all of us are going to have to pay more because you want to play Wild but don't want to pay what it costs. Entitled much?
they should not change anything - I want to be able to play the cards that I acquired - would not be fair to make it "easier" to make that collection
Yes, I do have all cards in old collections and more than 35.000 dust in mass disenchanter
Blizzard should no more give away Wild cards "because they're old" than Hasbro should give away Monopoly because it's old. In both cases, the same principle applies: if you value something, you need to be willing to pay for it.
This doesn’t make any sense. Hasbro (I assume) have no reason to give away Monopoly for free.
Blizzard do have a reason to give away things for free as we see them do this all the time. As a F2P game the model is based around hooking players in by giving them things for free. You not understanding this doesn't give me hope for the rest of this conversation.
Yet you stand there asking for a handout, operating under the delusion that you're doing Blizzard or Wild players a favor by coming over.
No idea what you’re even going on about with this tbh. If I came over to Wild it would purely be for my own interests, I've never stated or inferred that I would ever play Wild to do anybody else a favour, why would I?
I also haven't asked for any handouts - this is a stock comment I see a lot from your ilk ('entitled' is another one, you guys really love that one) but it rarely applies to the conversations I see. Plus I've already purchased all of the expansions from the first 3 or so years of the game. I'm stating how I would like to see things done because I believe the game would be better off for it.
You're the one with a warped, selfish view: "Waaaa, I want stuff but don't want to pay for it." I'm willing to let the market set the price: you're not. So who's being irrational?
Again, no idea what you’re going on about with this either, I think you may have gotten a little trigger happy and exited when making your post. Either that or you’re suffering from a bout of big brain tourettes, just spewing out stuff that you think sounds clever. “Let the market decide! Now that sounds like I know what I’m talking about!”
I’ve already told you that I’m not saying Blizzard SHOULD give old content away free. Blizzard should do whatever is best for the game and their pockets. What I’m saying is that giving stuff away for free, IN A FREE TO PLAY GAME, could be what is best for the game and Blizzards pockets.
(And let me stop you before you spew out some nonsense about how the cost of producing old HS cards is essentially zero while the cost of producing a copy of Monopoly is small. This argument is used all the time and is completely irrelevant. The price a good should sell for has little to do with the cost of production. The price of a good is set by market demand. If I can produce something for $1 but sell it for $1,000, then $1,000 is a "fair" price. You may not like the fact that I just made a $999 profit, but I am most certainly entitled to it.)
Ooooh you stop me right there, big boy. Again though, more big brain tourettes. None of this relates to anything I’ve said.
"and I’m not saying they SHOULD give Naxx away for free." Actually, you pretty much are. To quote you from earlier in this thread, "Wild cards should be discounted when they rotate and eventually become free (or extremely cheap) the older they become." Since Naxx is one of the oldest expansions out there, it pretty much falls into this category. If you can't keep your own argument straight....
Well I mean even in the quote there I haven’t said that they SHOULD ever be free (see the part in brackets), you’re also missing the fact that despite Naxx being the oldest expansion, it will still get older, so if we’re not at a stage yet where it being free (or extremely cheap) makes sense we may get there in the future.
But all told that was a post earlier in the thread where I threw out my personal view of how I would do things. The idea being that the older an expansion is the less interest it would receive and therefore the less worth it would have. At some point it potentially becomes better from a business perspective to just give things of limited worth away for free - we see this happen all the time.
As I’ve said though, in reality Blizzard should do whatever is best for the game and their profit, and if what I suggested isn’t best for the game or their profit then they shouldn’t do it.
"So trying to pretend you know that things being free vs discounted would bring in a lesser profit looks a bit silly." This might be the most laughable of your statements. I don't need to know anything about Blizzard's profit margins to know that that giving cards away for free will bring in (wait for it) ZERO dollars.
You’re very confident for someone who struggles to grasp even basic concepts. The product being given away for free will not directly bring in any profit but it can lead to players making other purchases. For example a player who has never given Wild a second thought is given Naxx, they think “Cool, I can go try Kel and Loatheb out in Wild” which could lead to them buying other Wild expansions, recommending the mode to friends, or posting about it on an internet forum... This is a really common tactic so I’m amazed you aren’t aware of it, especially considering we’re currently discussing a free to play game.
And, by the way, if they did give away Wild sets for free, it would cost them substantially if (as they would have to do) people with Wild collections could dust them and just play with the free cards. I'm probably sitting on, what, 75k dust in Wild cards? At a minimum? Let me dust that but still play Wild and I won't need to spend money on another expansion pack for years to come. And there are lots of people like me. That's a lot of money out of Blizzard's pocket. As I said, the company will respond by increasing the price of other things. So all of us are going to have to pay more because you want to play Wild but don't want to pay what it costs.
Well no you already have bought old expansions I assume so you wouldn’t be able to get them for free if it ever came to that. The 'deal' would only be available to players who haven’t already purchased them. And it would likely be very easy for Blizzard to make old expansions undustable for players who got them free so any worry about abusing dust can be alleviated.
Entitled much?
Selfish much?
If you ask me the Wild/Standard split should have never happened. It was both a cheap cop out from a design standpoint (Standard cards don't need to be that fresh or interesting to see play because of the artificial scarcity of rotation) and money grubbing (rotation also inflates the value of Standard cards). So everything should be Wild ideally, therefore I approve of getting more people into Wild on principle. And more attention and balancing happening in Wild.
And as someone who played since Closed Beta I do not mind newer players getting access to those cards. Provided ofc the veterans get some benefits too. I would be fully cool with, say, Wild cards that are three to four years old (so 1-2 years removed from Standard) were given completely free. But make it like the Core set, undisenchantable and let us DE our own copies. That way both newbies and veterans walk away happy. Meanwhile greater engagement in Wild and with HS in general could benefit Blizzard too since Standard packs and those of newer Wild expansions would not be free. Yet those would contain critical cards and so inspire purchases. Alternatively older packs can be cheaper or older cards easier to craft. Again that way everyone benefits, arguably Blizzard too. However discounts should never be close to 75% since that allows exploits, even lower discounts like 25-50% do but lesser ones.
Good Lord, you're tedious.
You've now shifted your argument (if one can call asking for free stuff an argument) from "this is what I want so that I can have fun playing Wild" to "Blizzard should do this if it's in the company's best interest." The first position is at least understandable: you're asking for something that is in your own personal interest (though I will point out that you doing so is just as "selfish" as me arguing against it). You want to play Wild but (by your own admission) you don't want to spend the "hundreds or thousands of pounds" required to do so. So you want Blizzard to give you stuff so you can have more fun.
Your new position is so obvious as to be self-evident, but it also essentially invalidates your entire position. Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that giving away old expansions is in its best interest, since it has not done so. It has periodically offered discounts on Wild packs, but has shown no inclination to go beyond that into full-on handout mode. The company is, apparently, taking the "big brain" approach of insisting that people pay for what they want. Which is what I've been arguing for from Day 1.
Main problem with getting into wild is that your only reasonable way to get cards is crafting them. To make a standard deck, you buy X packs, look at what you got, dust duplicates\unwanted cards, craft the stuff you need. If you try to do this with wild packs... you'll get a lot of cards you'll never play anywhere, aka dust. No reasonable person will buy a 50 TGT packs to hunt for relevant rares\epics\legendary because there is little to none.
To make wild more accessible we need to either 1) reduce the crafting cost of wild cards 2) reduce gold\$ cost of wild packs 3) Improve wild packs somehow. Why would Blizzard do this? A lower price for something may result in more purchases and more profits.
My perfect solution would be #3 - Make bad\outdated epics\legendaries unopenable. Many legendaries have zero value beyond being collectible. Lets look at some ancient set - The Boogeymonster, Soggoth the Slitherer, Mukla, Tyrant of the Vale , Princess Huhuran... Those are not legendaries! Not by power level, not by uniqueness, not by anything but the symbol
And you aren't tedious?
You've now shifted your argument (if one can call asking for free stuff an argument) from "this is what I want so that I can have fun playing Wild" to "Blizzard should do this if it's in the company's best interest."
I haven't shifted any argument, you're talking about 2 completely independent topics that I have answered - the first is my personal wish for what I want, the second is a response to your absurd post which made several claims that Blizzard should not give away Wild content for free.
The first position is at least understandable: you're asking for something that is in your own personal interest (though I will point out that you doing so is just as "selfish" as me arguing against it). You want to play Wild but (by your own admission) you don't want to spend the "hundreds or thousands of pounds" required to do so. So you want Blizzard to give you stuff so you can have more fun.
How is me wanting something for free selfish? Do you actually know the meaning of the word?
I'm not demanding I'm given anything for free. I'm not saying I'm entitled to anything for free. I'm not wanting to be given something for free at the cost of anybody else. I'm merely stating what I personally wish for (older expansions becoming cheaper over time and eventually free [or extremely cheap]).
The reason I'm claiming you are selfish is because you don't want other people getting things for free because you have already paid for them. I'd say that's pretty much the dictionary definition.
Your new position is so obvious as to be self-evident, but it also essentially invalidates your entire position.
Again, my 'new position' is me expanding onto a new topic in response to you and what you said. I'm struggling to see how you don't understand what is going on here. I haven't changed my initial position, I still want free Wild cards, why wouldn't I.
Blizzard obviously doesn't feel that giving away old expansions is in its best interest, since it has not done so. It has periodically offered discounts on Wild packs, but has shown no inclination to go beyond that into full-on handout mode.
This is just silly. Blizzard have constantly re-evaluated almost every aspect of the game over the last half decade. Last year would you have said the same reply to someone asking for a Battle Pass type deal? You would have looked pretty stupid if you had.
I would be pretty surprised if Blizzard go infinitely without changing how Wild is monetised, whether or not they do anything like I wish, or go a different route entirely I'll have to wait and see.
I bet that we will see some sort of rerelease of Nax soonish. Just look at classic WoW and their strategy.
Just half the dust for crafting cards in Wild sets.
Would anybody really object to this?
Perhaps the shareholders. But somehow I feel Wild is barely a dent in their wallets.
Unleash the potential. Wild could match Standard if Blizzard wanted it to.
I can say some from personal experience: I have tried to introduce friends to Hearthstone, who quit after a short amount of time because they felt Standard was too basic; a "demo version" of the game, but Wild was too expensive to get into.
yes, then I want refund of my collection
Problem if you do that is :
1) people who paid full money/dust will be angry. I'm still angry at the duplicate protection, they could have made a nice gesture to all of us fools who paid trash packs when the game was still growing, but they didn't. And if they introduce half dust cards, same story, us veteran players who funded the game get fucked.
2) many people will wait for the wild rotation before they craft anything, this will heavily promote Wild which is good for the community, but also heavily discourage people from playing Standard which is very bad for Blizzard.
What about another wild mod they choose 3 expansion set + one adventure set without classic cards and each month it rotates like in arena.
So, you are against any measures that make the game cheaper unless you will be compensated for that? Are you for real?
No minion mage is tier 3 lol now. ("Oh good, another no-minion Mage." Yawn.) so this is moot point
Speaking as a veteran player who funded the game, I will be in no way fucked if Wild dust costs get adjusted. I already have those cards; their costs are immaterial to me. I use them for Brawls and Duels, but I have very little interest in Wild as a format, because there are a lot of cards that make me think "I'm glad that rotated so I don't have to deal with it anymore."
To your second point, I think you're overestimating the number of people who make their Gameplay Mode decisions based on relative costs of cards. Wild gameplay is not the same vibe as Standard, and even though I have a very large Wild collection, I play Standard pretty much exclusively. Will there be some people who go "Oh cool, cheap cards"? Sure, of course there will be some. Does that add up to "heavily discourage people from playing Standard"? I think that's a real stretch. There will always be excitement around the newest set, for the simple reason that it's new and interesting. And you can use those new cards in Wild too, so it's not like that would affect Blizzard's bottom line.
Are YOU for real ? I am totally for duplicate protection and totally for cheaper wild cards. I just explained why I and other veterans would be angry if that happens without compensation for us, and why Blizzard wouldn't let that happens. If you can't understand this then we simply cannot discuss since you are 100 points below my IQ bucket, different species can't communicate.
What about the other things I said ? Do you even care what I said about blizzard and discouraging people from playing standard, or I just hurt your feelings cause you're too broke to craft wild cards ?
Blizzard will never cut in half the cost of wild cards. They do not care about veterans that's for sure, they despite those who built this game and focus exclusively on new players, so you don't have to worry about that, but they do care very much about standard being the most important game mode.
Would you really craft any standard legendary for 1600 dust, if you could wait 2 years and craft it for 800 dust and play it in a more fun format ? I know I wouldn't. I wouldn't even touch standard anymore.
You have no interest in the Wild format, your opinion is pretty clearly biased. You would be in every way fucked if you cared about Wild.
"I already have those cards their costs are immaterial to me" makes no sense to me. Cost is cost. Money is money. If you pay 10 bucks for something and it later costs 5 bucks, you got fucked. It was your decision, yes, it's good that it costs 5 instead of 10, yes, but you got fucked.
I think you're underestimating it.
People literally wait for the meta to settle before they craft anything. They care about dust more than anything. Of course not everyone would care, as you stated, not everybody cares about Wild and there will always be people who want to experiment new sets in standard, but I believe the impact would be significant enough to deter Blizzard from doing it.