7 days till the *hit hits the fan. Or maybe not?

[bcbully]

I do not believe the L.A Times, can you find a dozen more sources for this so-called fact? I just do not believe it.

March 30, 2010: In a "Activision Blizzard restructuring move", the above often quoted CFO (Chief Financial Officer) Thomas Tippl is, according to Massively and the L.A. Times put in charge as COO (Chief Operations Officer) of the "Blizzard business unit", with Mike Morhaime directly reporting to him, according to Joystiq

I there are many more references to this.

---------- Post added 2012-02-09 at 02:26 PM ----------

Vivendi Games was not just a division, it was a holding company founded by Vivendi to manage their video game assets. This holding company was merged to form Activision-Blizzard with Activision also becoming a subsidiary of Acti-Blizz that handles all the non-Blizz IPs.



Read that part of my post that you bolded. Does it mention Mike? No. It quite clearly says (in big black letters now) that Bobby reports to the CEO of Vivendi / chair of Acti-Blizz.

Sorry about that dhrizzle. I made a mistake /shame

[freelapdance]

I dont think the SWTOR numbers are accurate. I had to subscribe to even be able to play my free month and stopped after that. Does that make me a subscriber?

[Papavoikos]

Wanna know why blizzard is losing subscribers? well that's easy, they changed their target audience. They changed the game to appeal to a different kind of market hoping that wow would grow. It was a risk they took and it failed, now they are paying for it

business

[dryankem]

Blizzard has to cater to new players or WOW is dead. Even dedicated people are going to get bored eventually and leave for one reason or another. If they only catered to the elite then eventually there would be no one left playing the game (therefore no revenue, therefore no game).

Let's just use hypothetical numbers and say they need 10 people playing to make it worth blizzard's time and effort and let's say there are 11 people playing. Sure make those players happy, give them lots to do and build everything for them. Now one player get's married another has a kid and now you have 9, so now you have to find another 1 or 2 players but that's not that easy. You give/sell the game to a couple kids and maybe they don't like it for what ever reason (they can't play with those other 9 for a long time, or they don't understand it, etc.. etc..), so you have to keep selling the game. You have to make the game more accessible so that when you sell the game to 10 more people, you hope 2 stick around (and the process never ends because another one of the original 11 just had his computer die and has no money to replace it for a long time).

So they have to balance their time between attracting new players and keeping the old players. And content is hard/time consuming to make so that there are theoretically no glitches, as well as being extremely polished and well written, only to have players play for 20 straight hours, burning through content as fast as they can and then complain there is nothing to do. The trick is to make a game that you do the same things over and over and still not get bored of it (basically give the players a false sense of accomplishment). It's the small rewards that the developers hope keep bringing players back (hey look at my shiny new gear, or look at the achievement I just got). Either enjoy playing the game or don't but remember that in the long run it's only a game.

[bcbully]

Please be a little more dramatic. Game Genre's rarely die, and social ones certainly don't (humans are social creatures and crave interaction with others).

Yeah that is pretty dramatic. I just don't see innovation on the horizon. I don't know if I will make it another year with the same old stuff. I don't think I'm alone with this feeling

[Crummy]

I dont think the SWTOR numbers are accurate. I had to subscribe to even be able to play my free month and stopped after that. Does that make me a subscriber?

I thought the same thing the moment it told me I had to sub for a free month.
Ofcourse they're gonna count me as a sub when they publish their numbers. Truth is though, probably half of them are players like me that just logged on to SWTOR just to check if WoW was still the #1 Kick ass MMO. And it is.

[sandbenders]

3 games 59.99 each worth more than a 14.99 wow sub. Activision knows blizzard will sell millions of HotS, D3, And MoP. Activision wont care about MoP subs. they make the money they lose in lost subscribers with blizzard store items.

Uhh, not to be a jerk, but $14.99*12 = $179.88. $59.99*3 = $179.97. Three games at $59.99 are only 9 cents more valuable than a year of WoW subscription.

When you figure in sparkle ponies, realm transfers, and the fact that you can rely on those WoW subscribers as recurring revenue, the WoW subscribers are worth more to a business.

-SB

[freelapdance]

I actually resubbed for a month in Jan to see how things were but like many I guess just felt the game was just so bloody watered down. But I am still of the mindset of there should only be one difficulty. People should have to play the game and work hard to see the end content. But each to their own, everyone plays a game with different mindsets.

Overall since playing WoW since Vanilla I just got bored ....... Multiple times. Although I cannot answer as to why I resubbed for that month ..... Again. I feel like a battered house wife returning to an abusive husband ....... Why am I going back ....... Again.

[conceit2]

To everyone saying that wow is losing subs only/mainly because of the change in target audience please keep in mind:

1. There are multiple factors causing the the decline. Don't just look at yourself. Just because you left for reason X, it does NOT imply all 1.1m subs left because of X, too.

2. The game is 7-8 years old.

3. The decline was mainly in Asia.

4. If the 'hardcore/dedicated' people form a relatively small group, then why would a part of them leaving have such a big impact on the subscriber level?

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Blizzard has to cater to new players or WOW is dead. Even dedicated people are going to get bored eventually and leave for one reason or another. If they only catered to the elite then eventually there would be no one left playing the game (therefore no revenue, therefore no game).

It becomes a niched game, like EQ2. Those 72k subs like it "just this way" and fight to keep it "just this way". Ask for ability changes expect a Hall of Shame thread at EQ2Flames.

That's one extreme end of the spectrum, and considering what WoW was created for (everyone to play), it wouldn't work for WoW. It's a themepark game with many rides for everyone.

The danger for WoW is if more "everyone can play" leave, leaving but the hardcores left (which I'm worried about when WoW loses subs) WoW will become the niched, with equal turf guarding. It's pretty evident in class forums how some fight tooth-and-nail on how "I WANT THE GAME TO BE...I'LL GET YOU BANNED OTHERWISE". If Blizzard isn't careful WoW will slowly turn into but turf guarding, further alienating the community (and perhaps that's the missing "how did Cata fail" part, as these types came out of nowhere to defend wholesale class changes that really have no purpose [e.g., adding Holy power on top of mana]).

[loki504]

To everyone saying that wow is losing subs only/mainly because of the change in target audience please keep in mind:

1. There are multiple factors causing the the decline. Don't just look at yourself. Just because you left for reason X, it does NOT imply all 1.1m subs left because of X, too.

2. The game is 7-8 years old.

3. The decline was mainly in Asia.

4. If the 'hardcore/dedicated' people form a relatively small group, then why would a part of them leaving have such a big impact on the subscriber level?

and you forgot nr 5. the doomsaying on forums. sometimes i just want to quite so i don't need to look at the forums and there doomsaying all that long

[Osmeric]

Vivendi Games was not just a division, it was a holding company founded by Vivendi to manage their video game assets. This holding company was merged to form Activision-Blizzard with Activision also becoming a subsidiary of Acti-Blizz that handles all the non-Blizz IPs.

Point me to the legal document where Vivendi Games was incorporated. I'll wait.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

4. If the 'hardcore/dedicated' people form a relatively small group, then why would a part of them leaving have such a big impact on the subscriber level?

It's not the hardcores leaving (hardcores rarely do leave). It's the more casuals who tire that entertainment has become a job.

When the casuals leave what is left is but hardcores, and then the game is only fun for hardcores -- and due to there's fewer of them, grouping becomes a major problem, and the game appears dead. If Johnny NewPlayer arrives and will only see a dead game, Johnny is going elsewhere so he can group and enjoy the game...not be barked at from hardcores for simply being new.

[Osmeric]

It's not the hardcores leaving (hardcores rarely do leave). It's the more casuals who tire that entertainment has become a job.

When the casuals leave what is left is but hardcores, and then the game is only fun for hardcores

And not even for all of them, because some of them now find themselves on the bottom of the heap.

[Gurbz]

Point me to the legal document where Vivendi Games was incorporated. I'll wait.

That would be a bit hard, but possible with enough digging and letter writing. The original company was founded in 1993 as Universal Interactive Studios. But everything he said was factually correct.

Further reading here and here.

[conceit2]

Uhh, not to be a jerk, but $14.99*12 = $179.88. $59.99*3 = $179.97. Three games at $59.99 are only 9 cents more valuable than a year of WoW subscription.

When you figure in sparkle ponies, realm transfers, and the fact that you can rely on those WoW subscribers as recurring revenue, the WoW subscribers are worth more to a business.

-SB

Assume 1.5m people quit per year. And it is probable that all three games will sell more than 1.5m = 4.5m games total (which is likely imo) in a year time. Then three new games will generate more revenue. Also don't forget leaving subs will most likely reduce maintenance costs.

But yes, I have to agree, long run revenue =/= short run revenue, and in the long run you'll prefer the subs (recurring income) over the three games (one time income), though I assume the D3 auction house will generate some nice extra revenue for Blizz.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

And not even for all of them, because some of them now find themselves on the bottom of the heap.

In the end that is how WoW will really die, too. When the hardcores get burnt out, there's no or few replacements.

Hope they watchout for what they ask for, because it's so easy to chase folks away.

[Osmeric]

That would be a bit hard, but possible with enough digging and letter writing. The original company was founded in 1993 as Universal Interactive Studios. But everything he said was factually correct.

Further reading here and here.

If you look at the Activision-Blizzard page, you will see that Activision-Blizzard was formerly Activision. VG was not merged as an equal with Activision -- it was merged INTO Activision, which was then renamed to Activision-Blizzard. The resulting entity is legally the same corporation as Activision, just renamed. It was not a symmetrical arrangement.

[Orange Joe]

If you look at the Activision-Blizzard page, you will see that Activision-Blizzard was formerly Activision. VG was not merged as an equal with Activision -- it was merged INTO Activision, which was then renamed to Activision-Blizzard. The resulting entity is legally the same corporation as Activision, just renamed. It was not a symmetrical arrangement.

Since you want proof from others, where is yours?

[shadowmatrix]

If you look at the Activision-Blizzard page, you will see that Activision-Blizzard was formerly Activision. VG was not merged as an equal with Activision -- it was merged INTO Activision, which was then renamed to Activision-Blizzard. The resulting entity is legally the same corporation as Activision, just renamed. It was not a symmetrical arrangement.

If you read further it also says that Activision and Blizzard still exist as separate entities. Vivendi acquired Activision in the deal so both companies retained equal footing in the new partnership. The only companies that were put under Activision's direct control were the ones that had overlapping business models as them such as Sierra Entertainment. At no point in time was Activision given Blizzard stock, Vivendi gained Activision stock in the deal.