Question: is wow population really low?

[Pann]

Umm okay let's break this down. Yes we can say that a gain in subs due to Wrath China but you cannot prove all 500k of the subs gained during the end of WotLK were from Wrath China. Right?

Secondly the claim Akka made was that WotLK was a straight line for the entire expansion. I have PROVEN that incorrect by Blizz's own data showing a gain of 500k subs BEFORE Cata released. I don't give a damn WHERE they came from when proving his statement incorrect.

No, but we can be reasonably confident from ATVI's SPL that there was no sub growth between the announcement in Q4 '09 and the next in Q3 '10. It is also reasonable to assume that the majority of subs gained in Q3 '10 were from lower income Chinese subs due to 6% decrease in like for like MMORPG revenue. The fact that is cannot be proved 100% that the subs gained were from China does not prove what you are saying.

Akka specifically said "...with tiny blips at each extremities..." so you have not proved anything other than you have not read what he wrote.

[Kyanion]

No, but we can be reasonably confident from ATVI's SPL that there was no sub growth between the announcement in Q4 '09 and the next in Q3 '10. It is also reasonable to assume that the majority of subs gained in Q3 '10 were from lower income Chinese subs due to 6% decrease in like for like MMORPG revenue. The fact that is cannot be proved 100% that the subs gained were from China does not prove what you are saying.

Akka specifically said "...with tiny blips at each extremities..." so you have not proved anything other than you have not read what he wrote.

Umm 500k subs isn't a "tiny blip" so don't give me that shit.

[Pann]

Umm 500k subs isn't a "tiny blip" so don't give me that shit.

Honestly, I've explained this to you in as simple terms as I possibly can and this is the nonsense you come back with?!? You quite clearly do not understand what you are talking about or what is being discussed and your attempts to try win an argument in the most insignificant points is an utter waste of time for everyone involved.

[Queen of Hamsters]

People say that WoW needs to do this or that to remain. This discussion has been going on since before TBC, and other mmorpgs have tried those very things, such as Wildstar being catered to "hardcore"... where is Wildstar now?

Yeah, I'll wave to you from atop Thunder Bluff in 15 more years in expansion number double-digit.

[Kyanion]

Honestly, I've explained this to you in as simple terms as I possibly can and this is the nonsense you come back with?!? You quite clearly do not understand what you are talking about or what is being discussed and your attempts to try win an argument in the most insignificant points is an utter waste of time for everyone involved.

Again YOU jumped into this bud. Akka said WotLK subs were a straight line with some 'blips'. I proved Blizz's own data to show the 500k sub gain months before Cata released. I don't care WHERE the subs came from. 500k subs are not a 'blip'. You are the one wasting MY time by jumping into something that did not involve you.

[Pann]

Again YOU jumped into this bud. Akka said WotLK subs were a straight line with some 'blips'. I proved Blizz's own data to show the 500k sub gain months before Cata released. I don't care WHERE the subs came from. 500k subs are not a 'blip'. You are the one wasting MY time by jumping into something that did not involve you.

You've been proved wrong and now you're trying to save face by misrepresenting what Akka wrote. I have explained why you were wrong instead of thinking of this as a waste of your time you should look at as a opportunity to learn something so you avoid making a fool of yourself in future.

[Kyanion]

You've been proved wrong and now you're trying to save face by misrepresenting what Akka wrote. I have explained why you were wrong instead of thinking of this as a waste of your time you should look at as a opportunity to learn something so you avoid making a fool of yourself in future.

You did not prove me wrong despite what you say. I provided the data that shows wow gained 500k subs which shows Akka is wrong saying WoW was a flat line despite a 'blip'. 500k subs is not a blip and not misrepresenting what he said. Think what you will and quite wasting my time. I won't be wasting my time with you further as I was discussing this with Akka and not you.

Fact: Wow gained 500k subs near the end of WotLK. This means WotLK's subs were NOT a straight line with a 'blip'.
Don't like it? I don't give a fuck.

[Pann]

You did not prove me wrong despite what you say. I provided the data that shows wow gained 500k subs which shows Akka is wrong saying WoW was a flat line despite a 'blip'. 500k subs is not a blip and not misrepresenting what he said. Think what you will and quite wasting my time. I won't be wasting my time with you further as I was discussing this with Akka and not you.

Fact: Wow gained 500k subs near the end of WotLK. This means WotLK's subs were NOT a straight line with a 'blip'.
Don't like it? I don't give a fuck.

The first post of yours I responded to claimed that sub growth could have happened in the months prior to the Q3 announcement which there is no evidence to support this. I have provided you evidence from ATVI which contradicts this claim. Thus you were wrong. You not understanding how or why you are wrong does not lessen this.

Akka is not wrong, and again you're misrepresenting what he wrote, the sub data that Blizzard provided throughout Wrath was flat apart from the tail end as he said. It is rather sad that you are now resorting to basing your argument on the use of the word blip.

[plaits]

As I said, its the only data we have. think its best to promote Warcraft Realms as a DEFINITIVE source, since it might put pressure on Blizzard to actually release the numbers again. We should want those numbers. Blizzard needs to do better here. So please embrace Warcraft Realms until they get those numbers out. Thanks.

But why?

Would you quit only if the numbers were low? Why do you need that number to know if you should be playing the game? Make your own decision. If you want to quit, just quit. If you want to keep playing, keep playing.

[Relapses]

Jesus Christ, only three things in life are certain.

1.) Death
2.) Taxes
3.) Akka and Pann arguing about what sub numbers in WotLK meant as if there's anybody in the entire fucking universe other than themselves who gives a shit

[towelliee]

6.3M as of 4/21

[Zoreyai]

Agreed, miss having server identity

[Akka]

And guess what that means. Subs went up DURING WotLK. Hence, NOT a straight line. Period.

From the very fucking post you're quoting :

Maybe read the post you answer to. It's one single sentence, it's not like the information is hidden.

Let me highlight it for you :
Considering WotLK was a straight flat line for its entire lifetime (with tiny blips at each extremities)

If you really consider WotLK "anything but a straight line" when it's been that for 90 % of its lifetime and just had two tiny jumps (one at the beginning and one at the end, when Cata was on the starting blocks), then you might want to get a reality check, or an hyperbole tone-down.

Most of the post you're quoting deal with this very point, and you manage to completely ignore it and re-state this BS. Let me repeat it : it's. Right. In. The. Very. Post. You. Quote.
And you wonder why I throw insults around instead of explaining ? Because that's the exact reason, fucktards who can't bother to read two words together and make any attempt at discussion a waste of time.

Also, you DON'T know when those 500k subs came into the picture. They didn't all show up during the last couple days of WotLK ready to go now did they? Don't be so ignorant.

Right back at you, look at the date when the 500K were reached, it's shown by the big dot on the graph. Look at when Cataclysm was released. Look at when Cataclysm was announced. Try to find two working neurons and light them up. Profit.

The amount of stupidity is truly staggering.

[Kyanion]

From the very fucking post you're quoting :

Maybe read the post you answer to. It's one single sentence, it's not like the information is hidden.

Let me highlight it for you :
Considering WotLK was a straight flat line for its entire lifetime (with tiny blips at each extremities)

If you really consider WotLK "anything but a straight line" when it's been that for 90 % of its lifetime and just had two tiny jumps (one at the beginning and one at the end, when Cata was on the starting blocks), then you might want to get a reality check, or an hyperbole tone-down.

Most of the post you're quoting deal with this very point, and you manage to completely ignore it and re-state this BS. Let me repeat it : it's. Right. In. The. Very. Post. You. Quote.
And you wonder why I throw insults around instead of explaining ? Because that's the exact reason, fucktards who can't bother to read two words together and make any attempt at discussion a waste of time.

Right back at you, look at the date when the 500K were reached, it's shown by the big dot on the graph. Look at when Cataclysm was released. Look at when Cataclysm was announced. Try to find two working neurons and light them up. Profit.

The amount of stupidity is truly staggering.

Why don't you go and READ my posts instead of rushing to claim people are fucktards. Those 500k subs came out MONTHS before Cata released. If those people came for Cata then they would have shown up in the NEXT quarter. I'm tired of explaining simple things to you over and over.

And I did read the fucking post I answered to. Here is YOUR fucking quote: "Considering WotLK was a straight flat line for its entire lifetime (with tiny blips at each extremities), I really wonder where the "cyclical" could have come." It CAN'T be a straight flat line for the entire lifetime if the subs went UP months before Cata. 500k subs ARE NOT a blip. Period. And btw I love how you added things to the original quote when I just provided a link to the quote that was a whole single line. Fucking classic right there! Move those goalposts so you don't look so bad. Check.

Go read my posts, go educate yourself to the links I provided to Blizzard's own data and then get over it and quit wasting my fucking time. I'll not be wasting my time further with you.

[rda]

You're going to have to post a link I can't find this "archive" of which you speak.

You haven't looked very hard, have you.

Here are the activity levels for WotLK:



The URL as text:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170113...onactivity.php

The only activity drop is around New Year holidays.

Compare to WoD / Legion which had HUGE drops and bumps.

I repeat, the "cyclical" behavior only appeared in material amounts since WoD. It started being noticeable in MoP in a much tamer form, but it only got serious / activity-defining in WoD (and continued to be serious in Legion).

Prior to WoD people had enough trust in Blizzard to stay subbed through rough times / had enough to do during rough times / rough times weren't so rough, you can mix and match these things as you wish.

- - - Updated - - -

And I did read the fucking post I answered to. Here is YOUR fucking quote: "Considering WotLK was a straight flat line for its entire lifetime (with tiny blips at each extremities), I really wonder where the "cyclical" could have come." It CAN'T be a straight flat line for the entire lifetime if the subs went UP months before Cata. 500k subs ARE NOT a blip. Period.

I am not sure what's to ruffle feathers about. Are we really arguing whether or not a gain of 500k on the base of 10+m in 2 years can be called "a blip"? With a "flat" perhaps not being "100% flat" and having some incline? Gee. That's a gain of 2.5% per year, for perspective.

The point is:

(a) there were always people who'd sub before new piece of content and unsub right after = "cyclical",
(b) the proportion of "cyclical" people was historically small and the effect from their subs and unsubs was getting lost in the general noise of people coming and leaving,
(c) this changed in WoD, with WoD the proportion of "cyclical" people became very big and that started generating big jumps in activity levels, this continued in Legion,

and, in my opinion

(d) this happened because people lost trust in Blizzard. Blizzard already had a history of year-long periods of nothing prior to WoD. They had three such periods (after WotLK, after Cata, after MoP) and every time people complained harder and every time Blizzard promised to never do this again. Player trust isn't infinite, and when, after the third year-long period of nothing, the shiny new expansion suddenly ended in a month or so, things broke. A large number of people left and a large number of those who stayed got skeptical and became "cyclical".

In sum, "players play cyclically now" is "we failed hard and as a result people started playing cyclically". Like I said before.

[DesoPL]

I thought i could never say this, but i kinda started understanding why WoW needs to die. I not saying is dying now, but needs to die.

1: Poor design. Okay as i said before, i don't mind using old zones for some quests such WPL, Scholomance etc. But it's bad practice reusing caverns or something. Most caverns in legion, are just reskined from MoP.

2: "We hear you, but we don't hear you exactly" I think main of problems is that, blizzard is seriously ignoring players feedbacks and they do what they want to do.

3: WoW is seriously getting course to another Asian grind MMO and if things will go like that, it will end like with Firefall. AP grind to do raids? No thanks...

4: PvP is dead in legion. Well i rarely do any PvP activities, but seeing posts about PvP conclusion is simple. Players don't like how PvP went in Legion.

5: Fillers. Broken Shore this point explain pretty well.

Players however still got big hopes with 7.3. I don't have because one reason. My trust to blizzard died somewhere this year and this is got nothing about rising prices only in EU or something else. I just see how game went from very solid MMO, to typical heaven for farmers.



This gif shows my burnout and dissapoint together.

[Djuntas]

WoW is dead..? We are posting on a fan-site thats been going strong for years, in a complaining thread with 23 pages, and its not even a big thread...

[Dismembered]

[A dot Ham]

You haven't looked very hard, have you.

Here are the activity levels for WotLK:



The URL as text:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170113...onactivity.php

The only activity drop is around New Year holidays.

Compare to WoD / Legion which had HUGE drops and bumps.

I repeat, the "cyclical" behavior only appeared in material amounts since WoD. It started being noticeable in MoP in a much tamer form, but it only got serious / activity-defining in WoD (and continued to be serious in Legion).

Prior to WoD people had enough trust in Blizzard to stay subbed through rough times / had enough to do during rough times / rough times weren't so rough, you can mix and match these things as you wish.

LOL. Hold up your data reference is the absolute PEAK of WoW.

What competition did WoW have in 2008? Warhammer? Age of Conan? Aion? Where are those games now? None of those games were any good.

What successful MMOs exist now that have proven staying power? FFXIV? SWTOR?

In 2008 people weren't playing anything else. Ya that might drop for a month and pick up the competition... but the competition was crap, which is why WoW is still here and they are not. The whole point is that players are playing multiple MMOs now, and they play during content gaps.

LOL... wotlk... what a fucking joke. As if WoW didn't lose people in Cata, or in MoP. Nope just WoD... it was all WoD. You make no concessions for the game getting older, changes in the market, changes in gaming habits, new entry into the market/competition. Which means you are being dishonest and unreasonable.

So lets choose a few more dates to get better perspective. But even your example from 2008 shows some fluctuation (in alliance side)

December 26, 2011 (SWTOR Just released)



October 13, 2012 (Just after the release of Pandaria)


December 1, 2014 (Hearthstone released March of this year, as did WoD)


Apr 24, 2016 (Overwatch releases in May)


The point is... we start seeing this "cyclical" activity back toward the end of WotLK and into Cataclysm... LONG before Blizzard started making "excuses" and bringing your attention to it.

WoW's current problem is that it isn't bringing in new blood. Poll kids ages 14-22. They aren't interested. Some are yes, but not nearly to the extent they were in 2004-2008.

A lot can happen in 9 years. A person can graduate, high school, and college. I myself was married in 2008, 9 years later I have a 2 year old, and a 5 year old. Quit my job powered through my Bachelor's in 2 year, and am currently working full time and working on my MBA. My activity has virtually nothing to do with what Blizzard is or isn't doing. My life dictates my activity.

So if WoW isn't bringing in new players, and most players are like me with lives that are evolving/growing. Then you can't make the conclusion that the ONLY reason WoW has leveled off is because of what Blizzard is or isn't doing, or how good or bad a job you perceive that to be.

Anecdotal as it may be, I used to have ~ 20 RL friends who played WoW on different servers. Of those I know 2 that usually buy the most recent xpac, and then quit a month later (and did so with MoP, WoD, and Legion). Of those 18 remaining I see them from time to time, they ask if I still play, and they simply wish they had the time to play. That isn't a negative experience on their part... that is completely 100% outside Blizzard's sphere of control.

[Akka]

Why don't you go and READ my posts instead of rushing to claim people are fucktards.

Considering you just ridiculed yourself by being unable to read, that's pretty rich.

Those 500k subs came out MONTHS before Cata released. If those people came for Cata then they would have shown up in the NEXT quarter. I'm tired of explaining simple things to you over and over.

Probably because you try to "explain" things that you actually don't understand and you just continue to ridicule yourself, as usual.

If you weren't so fucking dumb and unable to even look at the data you use, you'd notice that the subscriptions announcements weren't following a quarterly schedule until Cata or MoP - Blizzard just made announcements when they managed to reach a milestone. I mean, anyone not completely retarded can notice it :



It seems that 2005 had 11 or so quarters and 2009-2010 had six, four of them being tightly packed together

How anyone with a pulse could look at this graph and try to make an argument about quarters before Cata, I don't know, but hey look back at my point that it's rather pointless to argue with idiots (though the joke is on me, that's exactly what I'm wasting my time to do right now).

And I did read the fucking post I answered to. Here is YOUR fucking quote: "Considering WotLK was a straight flat line for its entire lifetime (with tiny blips at each extremities), I really wonder where the "cyclical" could have come." It CAN'T be a straight flat line for the entire lifetime if the subs went UP months before Cata. 500k subs ARE NOT a blip. Period. And btw I love how you added things to the original quote when I just provided a link to the quote that was a whole single line. Fucking classic right there! Move those goalposts so you don't look so bad. Check.

Speaking of "checking", maybe check the graph yourself :



I guess if you're grasping at straws enough, or enough of a complete moron, you might argue that WotLK is not a straight line with small blips at each end, but that's on you (don't worry, you ARE enough of a complete moron full of bad faith to do it, that's a certainty, that's what you've been doing for more than one page after all).

Go read my posts, go educate yourself to the links I provided to Blizzard's own data and then get over it and quit wasting my fucking time. I'll not be wasting my time further with you.

Irony at its finest here :lol:
You're the very definition of what you project on others, and you just made a complete clown out of yourself.

At least now I remember why I always ignored your posts in other threads. I definitely should have done the same here.