Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
L0rinda

hearthstone Pack Prices to be Increased

38 posts in this topic

6nlbsJw.png

Pack prices in Europe are to be increased as of March 22 2017.

The extent of the price rise varies by region, but if paying in Euros, it is an 11 percent rise across the board. For GBP, the rise is over 20%, and has actually gone from £1.99 to £2.99 if buying two packs!

40 packs in Europe will now cost €49.99, up from €44.99. The price of the Un'Goro prelaunch bundle will remain the same until launch. All of the changes for all currencies can be found on the official forum post by Zaerhinon. 

udf9d30.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The increase is not really that severe, but it is still an increase. I am, of course, not happy about it. Oh well, greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, positiv2 said:

greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual

Have you any insider knowledge whatsoever about the decision-making process behind the price increase?  Rhetorical question.  Global economy 101: dollar strong, pound weak.  Thing in UK cost more.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mimech said:

Have you any insider knowledge whatsoever about the decision-making process behind the price increase?  Rhetorical question.  Global economy 101: dollar strong, pound weak.  Thing in UK cost more.

I am not talking about the cost in pounds being increased more than the rest of europe (it will still be cheaper to buy in GBP than in EUR) - I'm talking about the fact that they are going to increase the prices itself. 

6 minutes ago, mimech said:

Global economy 101: dollar strong, pound weak

I could use a bit of global economy knowledge indeed, so what I am about to say might not be true - USDGBP is 0.82, which means one dollar is 0.82 pounds. From this value, I believe GBP is stronger than USD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, positiv2 said:

 greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

They build an entire game and let you play for free if you'd like, making absolutely no money unless you decide to purchase extra content. So greedy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, positiv2 said:

I could use a bit of global economy knowledge indeed, so what I am about to say might not be true - USDGBP is 0.82, which means one dollar is 0.82 pounds. From this value, I believe GBP is stronger than USD. 

That means it's weaker, as you get less dollars for the same number of pounds. If you wanted to travel from the UK to US and exchanged 100 pounds, you wouldn't get 100 dollars, you would get a little less, as 0.82 is not a full figure. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strength of curacy is measured by change in purchasing power.

 

If 1 GBP gets you 2 USD, and it has always been this way then there is no weaker or stronger curacy. A curacy becomes weaker or stronger when there is a change in this ratio. So if if it takes 1.1 GBP gets you 2 USD (and all prices in each country stay the same) then the GPB has weakened in comparison to the dollar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Plergoth said:

That means it's weaker, as you get less dollars for the same number of pounds. If you wanted to travel from the UK to US and exchanged 100 pounds, you wouldn't get 100 dollars, you would get a little less, as 0.82 is not a full figure. 

You got it confused. If 1 USD is 0.82 GBP, then the GBP is indeed stronger, because for 100 GBP you would get more than 100 USD, not less.

Think of it this way, if you want to "buy" 1 USD you would need 0.82 GBP, so for 100 USD you'd only need 82 GBP.

Currency sure can be confusing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Plergoth said:

If you wanted to travel from the UK to US and exchanged 100 pounds, you wouldn't get 100 dollars, you would get a little less, as 0.82 is not a full figure. 

USDGBP is USD to GBP ratio. If USDGBP is 0.82, then 1 pound gets you 1.2 dollars, just like Ogerscherge said.

 

1 hour ago, Daedrik said:

They build an entire game and let you play for free if you'd like, making absolutely no money unless you decide to purchase extra content. So greedy.

Hearthstone is a pay2win game to some extent, forcing players to pay in order to have a material advantage over other players. 
Blizzard made 6.6 billion USD in 2016, so I don't think they really need that extra money they get from the pack increase. They are just greedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, my bad, it's been a while since I had to math :/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, positiv2 said:

Hearthstone is a pay2win game to some extent, forcing players to pay in order to have a material advantage over other players. 
Blizzard made 6.6 billion USD in 2016, so I don't think they really need that extra money they get from the pack increase. They are just greedy.

Again, it's a free to play game that they spent millions of dollars developing. You can earn almost every card in the game (minus solo adventure cards, which aren't getting a price hike) just by playing the game. No one is being forced to pay to get cards, you can just play and earn them. If you don't like the company, the game, or the policies, no one's forcing you to play, either. Get over it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bring some torches and forkes!

We have a heretic who dares to say something against our almighty God Blizzard!

Let's burn him on a stake!

 

It truly is fantastic to see Blizzard Fanboys going into rage-mode if somebody dares to say something about the biggest love in their live...

Edited by WedgeAntilles
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, positiv2 said:

Blizzard made 6.6 billion USD in 2016, so I don't think they really need that extra money they get from the pack increase. They are just greedy.

Newsflash: Blizzard is a company, not a charity. They provide a product, and they have every right to charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it, you have every right not to buy it. That's your power as a consumer. 

The goal of any company is to make money. Wanting to make money is not greedy. 

Where do you think the money that Blizzard makes goes? Into Morhaime's pocket? Into Kaplan's? Into Brode's? Perhaps the extra revenue will be used to add more assets to the Hearthstone team. It might make the game better.

And even if Blizzard is just rubbing its hands together manically and cackling, it's still their right as a company to do so. They have no obligation to make the cheapest possible product if that isn't what's best for them, financially.

26 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Bring some torches and forkes!

We have a heretic who dares to say something against our almighty God Blizzard!

Let's burn him on a stake!

 

It truly is fantastic to see Blizzard Fanboys going into rage-mode if somebody dares to say something about the biggest love in their live...

 If you don't like Blizzard, you shouldn't support them by playing their games or spending money on their products. I'm not sure what you gain from belittling people who enjoy Blizzard games, or want to support the company. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Daedrik said:

Again, it's a free to play game that they spent millions of dollars developing

... and made billions off of it.

9 hours ago, Daedrik said:

minus solo adventure cards, which aren't getting a price hike

Actually, they do. Current price in € is 5.99, but it will rise to €6.99. Please, read the post next time.

9 hours ago, Daedrik said:

You can earn almost every card in the game (minus solo adventure cards, which aren't getting a price hike) just by playing the game.

Firstly, once the adventures are gone and pack expansions are the only ones, it will be significantly harder. For 2800 gold you could have had all the cards from the adventure expansion. With 2800, you can buy 28 packs, which is not even enough to get guarantee you a legendary. 
Secondly, it would take several years of actively playing the game, and even limiting yourself to arena, and even then only at a solid level. That's why there are so many jokes on F2P accounts on hearthstone, like "The first, and probably the hardest trick, is that you should have started playing Hearthstone when it was released so you could keep up with all the new expansions. Well now that may not be possible for everyone, so your best course of action would be inventing a time machine and going back in time." (link) - it's easier to invent a time machine to play HS as a F2P.

7 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

The goal of any company is to make money. Wanting to make money is not greedy. 

I agree, but in this case, they already make a ton of money, and yet that's not enough for them, so they push the pack costs even higher. That is greedy.

9 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

Where do you think the money that Blizzard makes goes? Into Morhaime's pocket? Into Kaplan's? Into Brode's? 

I guess it goes to Kotick's pocket, but then again, finances of massive companies like Blizzard is not my specialty.

13 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

Perhaps the extra revenue will be used to add more assets to the Hearthstone team. It might make the game better.

It's not like they don't have the money they could spend on HS already. Also, the money could go to the development of Call of Duty rather than Hearthstone, and I couldn't care less about CoD.

19 minutes ago, enviousmtg said:

They have no obligation to make the cheapest possible product if that isn't what's best for them, financially.

I don't think paying €45 for digital cards can be  "cheapest possible", so increasing the cost by another €5 is not going to make players happy, I think that's clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I like Hearthstone, yes Blizzard is greedy, yes I like Blizzard still, yes I am f2p casual player, yes if you do not like any of it you are free to go on and make your own f2p card game with blackjack and hookers. 

Yes, I am triggered :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2017 at 6:22 AM, positiv2 said:

The increase is not really that severe, but it is still an increase. I am, of course, not happy about it. Oh well, greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

I wouldn't really call it greed.  If you look at the trend in the euro, it has been decreasing in value compared to the dollar for quite some time, currently (before the price hike) it is cheaper to buy packs in euro's then it is in american dollars.  After the price hike, it will be slightly more expensive to buy in euros then american dollars.  I am not sure how much you know of the game industry, but in general, it costs a large amount of money to export games to other countries.  So when you consider that you are currently paying less for a game that costs Blizzard more to export, and if the current trend in conversion rate between euros and dollars is to continue (which it might or might not, I am no expert on finance so I can't even really speculate only extrapolate from the trend over the past few years), then it only makes logical sense for blizzard to implement a small price increase.  Blizzard as a corporation also has an obligation to their board of directors and stock holders to show growth and profit, and it is hard to defend making less money in a region that costs you more to export to then you do in your home region.  On top of that, Do you have the right to be unhappy about it, sure no one wants to pay more money for a service they are already using, but I don't think it is unreasonable or even unexpected.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VaraTreledees said:

If you look at the trend in the euro, it has been decreasing in value compared to the dollar for quite some time, currently (before the price hike) it is cheaper to buy packs in euro's then it is in american dollars.

The average difference for 40 packs I saw was around 2 USD cheaper for most of the european currencies I looked at before hike, and 3-5 after the hike. Getting 2 packs (taking $3=2 packs) less for the same amount of money on EU compared to US server is in my opinion quite significant. A bit finer pricing for some currencies would certainly be welcome. More frequent changes, like in the case of RBL, would be imo fine as well.
Most of the european currencies seem to be stable after the drop in October/November, but you do make a good point.

2 hours ago, VaraTreledees said:

I am not sure how much you know of the game industry, but in general, it costs a large amount of money to export games to other countries.

As far as I know, most of these costs come from localisations/translations, from shipping and other logistic issues, but none of these are the case, as there were no new languages added to HS, and Blizzard doesn't offer any physical goods tied directly to the items that are getting the price increase.

2 hours ago, VaraTreledees said:

I don't think it is unreasonable or even unexpected.  

I was actually quite surprised by this. Since LoE, Blizzard has been much more generous. They gave us launch quests, return quests and 4-wing adventures. Now, all of sudden, they took the adventures, removed classic cards from standard, and increased the cost of packs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2017 at 6:22 AM, positiv2 said:

The increase is not really that severe, but it is still an increase. I am, of course, not happy about it. Oh well, greedy Blizzard being greedy as per usual.

I believe these prices are also inclusive of ~20% VAT as well, correct?

Thanks, Brexit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I'm out.

What a waste of money.

Not even going to pre order un'goro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually disagree that adventures are good for free to pay players. 2800 gold is roughly a month of daily quests+gold for wins and this is a lot of time.  I have started playing on Americas server two weeks ago mostly to try new arenas while I stockpile gold for Un Goro on European server.

It is impossible to craft any kind of reasonable deck because many key cards are in adventures. IMO, FTP players should be able to craft a top tier deck after few weeks of dedicated playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Does anyone know how much uk corporate tax blizz pay?

I suddenly have a dreadful thought of what tax avoidance schemes they may be using to screw the UK over anyway.

Do I sound bitter yet?


Edit: Bleh, some basic investigation suggests they have been using registered Dutch subsidiaries with special status that are fiscally resident in Bermuda.
 

Edited by SuperFly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Strongpoint said:

I actually disagree that adventures are good for free to pay players. 2800 gold is roughly a month of daily quests+gold for wins and this is a lot of time.

But that is all you needed for an adventure. So you spent your gold earned in one single month for the expansion and had 7 more month to save for the next full card expansion. On the other side, you won't get far with 28 packs. You will pull out 2 legedaries, if you're lucky, while you got 5-6 for each adventure.

Blizzard should be honest and rename the upcoming season to "Year of the Mammon". I will simply go f2p and only play Wild in the future. Having saved up 5k gold for Ungoro packs and 10k dust (including refunds for Rag, Sylvanas, ...) should be enough in this format. There won't be that many new cards you need to stay competitive in Wild, while you have keep your collection continuously up to date in Standard.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kerkermeister said:

But that is all you needed for an adventure. So you spent your gold earned in one single month for the expansion and had 7 more month to save for the next full card expansion. On the other side, you won't get far with 28 packs. You will pull out 2 legedaries, if you're lucky, while you got 5-6 for each adventure.

I can see your point here but I am not sure that I can agree. Three expansions are worse for players because it is more packs to buy with money\gold but it comes from the fact that there will be far more cards.  More cards without more ways to get gold\free packs is a blow for FTP players.

As far as I know 28 packs offer 2800 dust in disenchanting value on average. Adventure wing gives less disenchanting value but it is not random and never give duplicates so it is balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Strongpoint said:

I actually disagree that adventures are good for free to pay players. 2800 gold is roughly a month of daily quests+gold for wins and this is a lot of time.  I have started playing on Americas server two weeks ago mostly to try new arenas while I stockpile gold for Un Goro on European server.

It is impossible to craft any kind of reasonable deck because many key cards are in adventures. IMO, FTP players should be able to craft a top tier deck after few weeks of dedicated playing.

Let's compare Adventure vs Expansion.

League of Explorer had one Legendary Card with huge Meta-Impact: Reno Jackson

And another which is very usefull in quite a lot of decks Sir Finley Mrrgglton

It took us 2800 gold to get these cards.

And there were other cards which were usefull too.

Let's compare it to an expansion. In most expansions there are two or three legendaries with a big meta-impact. And sometimes a few class specific ones.

You need around 3000 gold to get just one legendary card. There are 15 - 20 legendaries in each expansion.

Your chances of getting the meta-defining ones are around 15%, if there are lots of important class legendaries higher.

Since you can disentchant not needed cards (which is not that much in the beginning, since you have 0, meaning your first 20 - 30 packs there aren't many cards you own 3 times+) you can safely asume that you need around 60 packs (with 2 legendaries you probably don't need) until you can craft one meta-defining legendary.

With 2-3 meta-defining cards you need around 120 packs. That is 12 000 gold.

(And if there are more then 3 legendaries you fast reach 15 000+)

That is 4 - 5 times the amount of gold you need to get the important legendaries compared to the adventure.

12000 necessary gold vs 2800 necessary gold.

No, that definitly isn't a HUGE advantage for the adventures. *sarcasm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

League of Explorer had one Legendary Card with huge Meta-Impact: Reno Jackson

And another which is very usefull in quite a lot of decks Sir Finley Mrrgglton

It took us 2800 gold to get these cards.

Finley is in 3rd wing, which means it takes 700g less - it takes only 2100 to get these two cards.

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

You need around 3000 gold to get just one legendary card.

You need 16 packs on average to get a legendary card, assuming you disenchant everything. If you do not disenchant everything (if you keep the good cards that you do not have), the value of packs goes higher.

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

There are 15 - 20 legendaries in each expansion.

To make it a bit more accurate - 23 for Un'Goro, 20 for Mean Streets, 21 for Whispers. So, it's more like 20-25, and the average Mammoth standard is 21.3 (let's round it down to 21).

2 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Since you can disentchant not needed cards (which is not that much in the beginning, since you have 0, meaning your first 20 - 30 packs there aren't many cards you own 3 times+) you can safely asume that you need around 60 packs (with 2 legendaries you probably don't need) until you can craft one meta-defining legendary.

With 2-3 meta-defining cards you need around 120 packs.
(And if there are more then 3 legendaries you fast reach 15 000+)

Well, after your 60 packs (though it's a number I disagree with you on), your collection will be much closer to being full, which means you'll need way less packs after the first legendary.
With 3 meta-defining legendaries from an expansion with 21 legendaries, you have a bit over 14% chance to get one of the meta-defining ones whenever you get a legendary. With the average of 20 packs per legendary, once you open 80 packs, you will have almost 50% chance to open a legendary you need/want. This further reduces the amount of packs needed.

Additionally, you seem to be missing that card packs can be grinded in arena even with less than 7 wins average, but to get adventures, you have to get more than 7 wins each time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Damien
      This thread is for comments about Legendary Quests guide.
    • By Damien
      This thread is for comments about our Adapt Mechanic guide.
    • By L0rinda

      Blizzard have announced that there will be a reward for logging in to Hearthstone each day, to celebrate the build up to the Year of the Mammoth.
      The rewards stop on April 5, and so it seems a fair assumption that the previously rumoured date of April 6 for the release of Journey to Un'Goro, is going to be correct. 

      Source
      As you can see, if you collect every reward, you will end up with 100 gold, 100 Dust, 4 packs, and a Golden Rare. Also, remember that you can collect these on all three regions just by logging in. Even if you don't play the other regions much, it is worth collecting these in case you ever change your mind!
      This also seems a good time to remind people that there will be a dump of all the unspoiled cards by Blizzard on Friday. At which point, we will be ready to start the upcoming Mammoth Hearthstone Year.
    • By L0rinda

      The HCT Winter Championship took place from March 22-26
      The first HCT Global Championship of the year has been completed. ShtanUdachi took home the $60,000 first prize by defeating Fr0zen 4-3 in the Grand Final.
      It was no surprise to many observers that these two players made it to the final. Each of them have been powerhouses on ladder for a long time, and both began to get noticable tournament results in 2016. Some of you might recognise Shtan as ШтанУдачи on the monthly Legend list, where he is regularly listed near the top. 
      Shtan had already beaten Fr0zen in the group stages, and so it was fitting that he was able to win again to take down the Winter Championship. The two losing semi-finalists were Canada's DocPwn, and Taiwan's SamuelTsao. All of the top four players will play in the World Championship, which will be held early in 2018.

      Click image to expand
      Shtan, who is known for being an innovative deck builder, was a little sad that he was unable to bring anything original to the tournament. Of course, that sadness was more than cancelled out by the end result. It is a sign of a strong, and mature, player to be able to play the right decks for the job in hand.
    • By L0rinda

      Today's HCT Championship broadcast began with the reveal of 10 new cards. The first half of this article takes a look at five of those cards and assesses how they might be used in the Year of the Mammoth.
      First of all, we have confirmation that Adapt is costed at 1 Mana. A Pit Fighter with double Adapt is 7 Mana

      This seems like a good time to remind everyone what the Adapt options are. They are: +3 Attack, Divine Shield, Deathrattle: Summon two 1/1 Plants, +1/+1, Poisonous (as in Emperor Cobra), Stealth until next turn, Windfury, Taunt, +3 Health, and Cannot be targeted (as in Faerie Dragon). Volcanosaur is likely too expensive to play a serious part in the meta, but you will often get the abilities that you want from it given that Adapt works with Discover, and so might be worth bearing in mind in heavy ramp decks, or in decks that need a very late win condition.

      It is good to see Blizzard keeping an eye on the current metagame. Gluttonous Ooze is a great card for slowing down aggressive decks that rely on weapons, such as the Current Pirate Warrior. Current ways to deal with Weapons are not particularly satisfactory, so this is a welcome addition to the game.

      Mana Bind is a logical card to have created. It is the Spell version of Mirror Entity, and as such will be a nuisance. It will also make playing around cards generated by random effects more complicated. Currently you will usually play around Spellbender and Counterspell as a pair, and the chances are not that great that they have been generated. With Mana Bind in the mix as well, people will have to be a lot more careful when playing around a random Secret.
      As more secrets get added, there is always more chance that a Secret synergy deck revolving around Kabal Lackey and Medivh's Valet type cards will become relevant. It seems unlikely that this card is powerful enough to swing the balance, but it is an archetype to be looked at.

      One of the major complaints about Hearthstone for the entire time that the game has existed is the lack of comeback mechanisms. Over the last year or so, the introduction of Portals and cards like Inkmaster Solia have shown a desire for this to change. Vilespine Slayer is another card on that list, and it seems like it is a pretty strong one. The card will fit into a variety of decks as it can fill the role of both a control card, and a card at the top of the curve in an aggro deck to clear the way (although Sap would often fill that role). I think this card will see play in Standard, but as usual, we will need to see how the meta evolves to see exactly how it fits in.

      The first thing to note about Living Mana is that it only generates 2/2s until the board is full. The rest of your mana is preserved. This opens the opportunity to play the card on turn 10 and then Savage Roar the turn after if your opponent doesn't deal with the Minions. Against that, if you play it and don't fill the board, you will have no Mana Crystals until either your opponent deals with the Minions, or you trade them off. This is an interesting card that I'm sure people will have fun trying to put into decks.
      The second half of these reveals can be read here.