The Queue: EARTHQUAKE makes me nervous!
by Michael Sacco 
Mar 18th 2011 at 11:00AM
Welcome back to The Queue, the daily Q&A column in which the WoW Insider team answers your questions about the World of Warcraft. Mike Sacco will be your host today.
The above text was on a letter attached to a Ditto traded from Japan in Pokemon Black/White. For those not familiar with the game's letter system, you can write phrases out of predetermined fragments and ability/Pokemon names. It's really cute and horribly sad at the same time. Donate to global charities if you can. It's a mess over there.
zEagleEye asked:
It says everywhere that dying does not damage your equipment in PvP. I have just started to do Tol Barad battles, and after every battle I need to repair my equipment. Isn't there a contradiction there?
You don't take durability damage when you die in PvP, but your weapons and armor still take normal wear and tear during PvP combat. There's a difference.
Jeremy Frink asked:
Has there been any talk on letting Worgen and Goblins complete the Argent Tournament, I realize its "old" content but I server and faction changed after Cata and would like to have the same access to titles that other races have.
As of a few patches ago, worgen compete for Darnassus and goblins for Orgrimmar in the Argent Tournament. No more issues.
Hal asked:
Are there Ogre ladies? I'm not sure I've ever seen one in-game.
None exist in-game, but they do exist in lore. Much like females of any other NPCs. When was the last time you saw a female Broken? It's an art asset thing.
Transit asked:
I think I remember a long time ago that 25 person raids would be able to be broken up and continued as 2 ten person raids. Is this true? How is it done exactly?
This was sort of implemented, but now the way it works is that you have a personal lockout for any boss you defeat. You can join any raid at any raid size at the same level of progression as your personal lockout (or further along) but not one that's behind you in progression.
Jason asked:
Why is it mainly 3 people who handle The Queue? There are several writers employed for WoW Insider, but I haven't seen many of them write a single Queue.
I guess what I'm asking is...can Christian Belt write the Queue some time? ^_^
We (Adam, Alex, and I) handle the Queue because it's a very regular feature that requires someone who's around a lot to write it. Lots of our writers are on the hook for only one column a week, and that's usually because that's all they have time for in their schedule. We three kings of senior editing are around the site more often than we're not, and can almost always find time to write The Queue. When we can't, we tend to conscript either Mat McCurley or Fox Van Allen to do it. We're not against other writers doing it periodically, though. If you want your favorite columnist to do a Queue, there are two important steps to follow:
1. Ask them, and
2. Make sure it's not on a day after Adam does The Queue, because he's just the worst.
Have questions about the World of Warcraft? The WoW Insider crew is here with The Queue, our daily Q&A column. Leave your questions in the comments, and we'll do our best to answer 'em!
Filed under: The Queue
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 10)
Boz Mar 18th 2011 11:03AM
I have far less time to play than I used to, and it's wasteful for me to pay for a month when I'm only online a couple days a week. It's not a question of affordability, it's a question of utility (hey, every penny counts). To be able to pay for a week, a day, or even by the hour would be preferable, so it begs the question: Has Blizzard ever published comments about alternative payment methods or periods, or have they ever modified their payment scheme before?
The answer may be a simple, "No," but if Blizzard has made comments or entertained the idea, it'd be nice to know, particularly if they've stated that they have no intention of changing. Thank you in advance.
MattKrotzer Mar 18th 2011 11:43AM
Blizzard has made statements in the past concerning their unwillingness to freeze accounts with partial amounts of playtime still available. They don't seem like they're especially keen to start making alternatives that will cost their billing department more time and money than they need to.
I'm not saying it won't happen, but I think that sort of thing will come much further down the line, when WoW's life cycle has diminished. Even then, I think they'd be more likely to adopt a free to play model with microtransactions than to implement a more "pay as you go" style.
V Magius Mar 18th 2011 11:48AM
I don't believe I've heard of any changes myself. The Asian countries have hourly rates, but that's more of a regional requirement.
The closest I've heard is that Blizz will prorate your last payment if you are quitting and call them.
It likely won't change any time soon, though. The $15 is for access to the server. You have the ability to log in any time you want in a 30 day period. Some just get a better value for their money than others. It would probably require changes to the billing structure. How much to charge for a week or day or hour. Then, auto-billing. Charge each our increment like now, or bill at the end of a specific period.
Possible, but not likely due to the logistics. If there is a loss of customers due to monetary issues, we could see this sooner than later.
thedoctor2031 Mar 18th 2011 11:59AM
I don't think Blizzard would ever plan something like this because they make money even when your not logged on, and so if you can just buy time for the days you need you would be taking money away from them. What I could imagine though, is that they give discounts for buying in bulk, say a 20% discount for buying a year long subscription with the discount decreasing as the subscription time decreases. If they implemented it this way, they could make it worthwhile for them to eventually let people buy subscription time in packets.
The Angry Intern Mar 18th 2011 12:05PM
@V Magius: It shouldn't be that hard to implement in the US, because, as you stated, they already have that type of payment system set up for the Asian countries.
Nyold Mar 18th 2011 12:20PM
It's true that they have the technology and the code to implement it, but they're not going to, because it doesn't make much business sense. They're making more money from you (customers like you) when you're paying $15 a month compared to when you're paying pay-as-you-go type.
The reason they can still support WoW with high quality development and maintenance despite the seemingly low price of $15 is because not everyone plays a lot. True, most people we hear about are hardcore raiders, but a lot of us (large majority of playerbase) are casuals who don't play as much. When you take the average, then each person doesn't really play a lot. Conversely, just imagine if everyone is a hardcore raider who plays a lot. Servers will be full a lot more often and they'd be forced to open up new servers etc, which means $15 is not going to cover all their expenditures anymore.
So how do you propose they price their pay-as-you-go scheme? Take the X% least playing customers, find their average hours per month, divide $15 by that, and make the pay-as-you-go price to be slightly cheaper? Think about it. If you would switch to such scheme on the grounds that it's cheaper on average for you, then it's less money that they're making for you. On the business sense, it doesn't earn them anything (literally) to introduce that kind of scheme.
Chetti Mar 18th 2011 12:21PM
They already give a small incentive for buying longer subscriptions. lol you pay a dollar less if you go for a 3 month or a 6 month, making your monthly payment 13.99/12.99 respectively. Granted this isn't the 20% you were talking about, nor is it that much of an incentive for me to jump from a monthly to an every 3 month thing.
When I was still in college, I would have liked an option to freeze my paid time or buy less time, especially since i knew when I wouldn't be able to play (mid terms and finals) for a stretch of time. What I had been doing was buying the 2 month game cards, it didn't save money - except that I could wait to apply the new card if I knew I wouldn't be able to log in anyway, but then there's still the 2 months of paid time applied that I would have needed to use or lose. I understand why they might not want to do a weekly option, or some other smaller than a month option, it would require restructuring of the current system and probably a lot of headache for the billing team.. and, in the end, loss of profit probably. Though, with all of the stuff like pets and the mount that can be bought, is it ever possible they're losing money?
Nyold Mar 18th 2011 12:29PM
There's another thing I forgot:
The current $15 a month "buffet" style feels more fitting for an MMORPG that, no matter how you put it, is an entertainment industry. I don't want to be calculating "oh great I just got kicked from LFD due to my mistake and now I'm gonna have to wait 20 more minutes. That's $0.45 loss according to my calculation."
No. I want to have fun and "oh dang I got kicked, oh well I'll just queue, take a shower, and come back."
Plus, in the hourly scheme, people are less inclined to log on in general unless they have a specific need and intent. This is basic common sense. That would defeat the purpose of why Blizzard went through all that trouble creating content for all types of players. It's just less "fun" overall.
Boz Mar 18th 2011 1:37PM
"...it doesn't make much business sense. They're making more money from you (customers like you) when you're paying $15 a month compared to when you're paying pay-as-you-go type."
Not true; I'm not playing right now so they make ZERO dollars from me today, but I would play if I could pay $1 for a day or $5 for a week (a premium per hour). That retains the attraction of the monthly subscription at $15 and gives Blizzard a premium for pay-as-you-go users. Depending on the cost of administering the pay-as-you-go accounts, this is more money per hour than for the monthly subscription for customers they would otherwise not have (such as me).
I'm not saying this is what Blizzard should do, only that it can be modeled to make sense financially for both parties, and I am wondering if they've every discusses their options publicly before.
DarkWalker Mar 18th 2011 1:39PM
I think it more probable for Blizzard to move to a hybrid F2P/subscriptions model than dealing with daily/hourly rates outside Asia. So, if the move to F2P in the near future is about as unlikely as it gets, I think it would be easier for Hogger to knock out Deathwing than for WoW to get daily or hourly subscription options.
Skarn Mar 18th 2011 1:58PM
As others have mentioned, Blizzard has shown no hints that they'll be shifting their payment model any time soon. Of course, it could happen, but there have been no announcements.
I'm curious though, what sort of hourly or weekly cost are you thinking of? Think about how much each hour you play "costs" right now. For example, if you play each week then you are paying $3.75 a week for WoW. Just 4 hours a week gives you a cost of less than $1.00 per hour. If you play only 2 weeks a month, 4 hours a week then you are up to $2.00 an hour. The "value" is going to vary a lot depending on how much you play, but it's usually a pretty good value. As has been said many times before, it's better value than going to a movie at a theater! While you may not be getting as much value out of your $15 as you usually get due to Finals or something, it's still a pretty good deal.
If your play time is really limited, then a $1.00 per hour fee might be better for you. The interesting thing about hourly models is that they can easily end up as a higher cost than a flat monthly fee if you're not careful. I'm happy with the monthly fee model, but I understand the allure of a weekly or hourly model.
Scomparsa Mar 18th 2011 2:58PM
Think of it this way:
A movie ticket costs what, $8? Think of your $15 a month to Blizzard as seeing 2 movies a month. If you only play for 4-5 hours that month, you've gotten your money's worth.
Boz Mar 18th 2011 3:27PM
I've heard the movie comparison before but, quite frankly, it's a terrible comparison. I don't go to movies because - drumroll - they're too expensive; I rent.
For $15, every month I could buy either:
1 Large, Fully Loaded Pizza
2 Games on Steam (Darksiders and some Oddworld)
3 "The Ladies of Star Wars" Playing Cards
4 Containers of Mints
5 Happy Meals
9 Bags of BaconPop Bacon-flavored popcorn (3 boxes)
15 Whopper Jrs.
36 Trojan Ultra-Thin Lubricated Condoms (3 boxes)
200 Diapers (4 boxes)
900 Baby Wipes (1 Kirkland Box)
Let's say you rent a car. You only need it to drive 5 miles, and you're going to return it an hour later; why not rent it by the hour?
Or go back to movies; would you want to spend $15 to watch as many movies as you wanted, or $8.50 to watch one movie? Some days you're not going to want to sit in a theater for more than two hours.
Some people will always prefer one pricing plan over another, and it behooves Blizzard to have multiple options; I am surprised that anyone would argue otherwise. You would still have the regular pricing plan available, so what is the harm if Blizzard were to introduce more options, or even premium pricing for shorter time periods?
Superthrust Mar 18th 2011 3:29PM
heres what i do.
find someone who works at best buy.
give them 22 bucks.
have them buy you a time card.
2 months for just over the price of one.
I have been doing this since i found out.
Jeremy Mar 18th 2011 4:32PM
"Begs the question" does not mean "raises the question". Begging the question is a logical fallacy, also known as circular reasoning. It is my (incredibly futile) quest to try to stem the tide of ubiquitous misuse of that phrase (I'm a copy editor, what can I say).
The more you know.
Kroof Mar 18th 2011 4:52PM
Every so often I read something like this where people get extremely upset over the $15.00 a month they pay to play.
Let me make this clear.
$15.00
Fifteen Dollars.
FIF-TEEN DOLLARS.
One ten dollar bill and one five dollar bill.
150 soda cans in Michigan.
I am by no means a rich person. Even the IRS agrees with me on this point.
I have to pay for fuel, rent, a car, utilities, food, internet and a phone.
Somehow, at the end of the month I still am able to afford a measly 15 dollars a month.
If I wanted to save more money, and it would be very smart of me indeed, I would pay for larger installments of the game and bring the price down.
(cutaia) Mar 18th 2011 5:21PM
"36 Trojan Ultra-Thin Lubricated Condoms (3 boxes)
200 Diapers (4 boxes)
900 Baby Wipes (1 Kirkland Box)"
Based on the progression here...I don't think you're using condoms right...
Boz Mar 18th 2011 5:41PM
@Kroof
Can I borrow $15?
@(cutaia)
My kids would agree with you.
DNW5379 Mar 18th 2011 5:48PM
"200 Diapers (4 boxes)
900 Baby Wipes (1 Kirkland Box)"
I want to know where the hell you get that kind of kit for $15? Damn son, that is cheap baby poops!
Hob Mar 18th 2011 6:41PM
@Jeremy
I disagree. "To beg the question" absolutely means "to raise the question" - after all, that's how everyone uses it, therefore it must be correct. And furthermore, if we didn't beg the question, the question wouldn't be begged. Logically, that's logic.
(Am I doing it right?)
/salutes copy editor