Article explaining exactly why WoW subs are going down

[finskee]

Are you drunk again? You're post was way confusing, and went back and forth. For example, you said the metallica analogy is horrible and then proceeded to expand upon it? It wasn't even my analogy. Plus everyone knows the Black album was the first sell out album, not LOad. Another example is how you say "Wow had more western subs when less than 1% of guilds had killed illidan" but then you say "based on the public data points and comments (from blizzard and netease), early wrath was *very* likely the high point in western subs". It can't be both can it?

And yeah I quoted the media. An actual printed publication that is called New York Magazine. Now you're going to tell me I can't quote the media. Also I can't use wikipedia. Please tell me what sources should I use? Where is it that you get your information from? I have to know. I have a pretty good guess actually. Please don't say it's that blog. You know the one. I don't even have to say the name. We both know what I'm talking about.

As far as the graph, the mmodata guy says the subs for east and west are not accurate, but he claims the overall subs are from real Blizz numbers from their financials. I looked it over and it seemed ok to me, based on what I know. If you have a more accurate chart let's check it out, because if so I want to see it.

The Finskee I remember used to produce original arguments and viewpoints. Now this imposter (hijacked account? Mental illness?) just posts whatever useful press 'reports' he can come up with to bolster his arguments.

Nice. I just had to quote that for the record. I've never actually had someone argue that I wasn't even myself before. If you want my viewpoint, just actually read those quotes, there is really nothing left to say. Everyone has an angle my friend. I can't wait to find out yours.

[gkai]

I think the majority of gamers can agree that Cata wasn't nearly as fun as the rest of the exp, and that's mainly why they're losing a lot of subs. The newbies still think it's a really fantastic game because it's new. simple. Old players want new content, new players are still fine. Blizzard needs to focus more on the old players, instead of trying to cater to the new players like they have been doing for a few years now.

instead of dedicating their time and trying to think of new strategies on trying to get new members, they need to focus on how to keep their old dedicated players keep playing. That's how they're going to attract new members. When someone asks "you still play that game?" you'll reply "Yeah it's still really fun" and that could easily attract a new member. Instead of "Yeah, there's nothing els better, but they really dumbed down the leveling so anyone can do it now"

[finskee]

That's pretty silly think about it. You just claimed they don't try to keep their old players around. What hole have you been hiding in? Did you miss the whole L2play debate at the beginning of CAT?

Here I'll put it simple. I'm an old player. I love that they dumbed down leveling. I just leveled up my last alt by running him through dungeons, and mining and herbing. Quests suuuuuuuuuuuuuck after 6 years of playing. Thanks, have a great day.

[gkai]

There's really no point arguing with you. Apparently everything you read you think is wrong. I forgot you worked for Blizzard.

[Nah]

Aw, I missed earlier discussion in this thread. Oh well. I scanned the article in the OP, and overall he's right on the money, but two things caught my eye that made me scratch my head.

If you haven’t noticed, World of Warcraft’s subs are going down. They even canceled Blizzcon this year.

Judging by how quickly Blizzcon tickets sold out, and the amount of people that tried and failed to get them the last couple of years, I don't think these two statements have anything to do with one another.

As you can see, M’uru is a fucking wind chime Christmas ornament–yet to this day, M’uru still garners more respect than Deathwing because M’uru didn’t get nerfed into the ground. M’uru didn’t have an Easy Mode, or an Easier Mode. You killed it as is or not at all.

M'uru was definitely nerfed into the ground, else the semi-casual guild I was raiding with at the time would never have killed him before WotLK. Ever. Did this guy forget the 30% across-the-board HP nerfs at the end of BC? Or that M'uru was nearly unkillable at first, thus his initial (much-needed) nerfs? Ok, ok, "hotfixes."

[Adramalech]

I forgot you worked for Blizzard.

Gotta love this "argument". Accusation. Whatever you want to call it. "You agree with Blizzard? You must either be the biggest fanboy or work for them!.".
"Oh, what's that, you're backing up your claims with sources? They're invalid and misleading. Or maybe you work for them? This isn't the guy I know!!".

Calling this "ridiculous" isn't enough.

[Tekkommo]

While I hate these posts, your article was good to read and very easy to read.

I also agree with you, mostly.

[DarkValthryn]

cool, Just saying thats awesome.

[finskee]

There's really no point arguing with you. Apparently everything you read you think is wrong. I forgot you worked for Blizzard.

I'm not sure why what I'm doing is making these people so angry!

I don't think he has any idea what I meant by the L2Play debate, just a guess.

[Druover]

Finskee you are silly. We all know you're old by now. stop saying it. You keep complaining about people doing things (generalizations, etc...) and then do the same thing in your next post. Just because you play for certain reasons that still exist, doesn't mean everyone is in the same boat. Just stop

[mvaliz]

I'm not sure why what I'm doing is making these people so angry!

I don't think he has any idea what I meant by the L2Play debate, just a guess.

Take a Lesson from Blizzard's own tip: "Being polite to others will get you invited back!"

Ad-homineming articles (such as the Kotaku article and others) and other's posts is one way you're making people so angry. Debate the article and post details... not pettily insult the forum where it's located on as a means to (pathetically) discredit them (which it does not).

You tend to Ad-hominem and insult people instead of debating/discussing their ideas and come off quite brashly/insultingly - even almost troll-like trying to inspire arguments/anger instead of actually debating ideas. Writing things like "are you drunk again?" doesn't really get the person you want to talk to to be willingly open to your ideas, does it?

[Deficineiron]

Another example is how you say "Wow had more western subs when less than 1% of guilds had killed illidan" but then you say "based on the public data points and comments (from blizzard and netease), early wrath was *very* likely the high point in western subs". It can't be both can it?

I am sober, but this comment makes me wonder if you are. Please explain to me why both cannot be true.

As far as the graph, you didn't note that the data was inaccurate in your post when you linked it, but only when I pointed it out for you. Why are you posting data you know to contain errors without noting those errors AT THE TIME YOU POST IT?

You can quote the New York Times and National Enquirer if you want, just don't be surprised if you get laughed at.

Folks following the new, improved Finskee should assume any external link or source he uses contains erroneous data and that he knows it and isn't telling you.

---------- Post added 2012-06-01 at 05:14 PM ----------

You tend to Ad-hominem and insult people instead of debating/discussing their ideas and come off quite brashly/insultingly - even almost troll-like trying to inspire arguments/anger instead of actually debating ideas. Writing things like "are you drunk again?" doesn't really get the person you want to talk to to be willingly open to your ideas, does it?

Comic relief on a slow day, please don't run him away. The usual suspects haven't been on the threads I follow recently. I actually was drunk when posting a couple of weeks ago, so I guess I am stuck with wikipedia links and drunk comments from him when that is all he has.

He is also demonstrating severe issues with set theory and basic topology, which is surprising because he seems reasonably literate and educated otherwise. Illustrations of why rock groups cutting their hair wasn't the same as blizzard cutting their revenues and subs also seemed to confuse him.

I hope we don't embarrass him into vanishing. at his post rate we can get 3500 more posts out of him this year.

I wonder what his previous name(s) here was/were.

[finskee]

Take a Lesson from Blizzard's own tip: "Being polite to others will get you invited back!"

Ad-homineming articles (such as the Kotaku article and others) and other's posts is one way you're making people so angry. Debate the article and post details... not pettily insult the forum where it's located on as a means to (pathetically) discredit them (which it does not).

You tend to Ad-hominem and insult people instead of debating/discussing their ideas and come off quite brashly/insultingly - even almost troll-like trying to inspire arguments/anger instead of actually debating ideas. Writing things like "are you drunk again?" doesn't really get the person you want to talk to to be willingly open to your ideas, does it?

You do understand the difference between a news source and a blog right? Here this is from the site the OP posted from:

General gaming news is rarely posted here, why?
"We think enough websites already fill that niche (and can do it better than we can!), so we try to avoid constantly posting news. Instead, we will typically make commentary on the news."

I don't feel the need to argue with commentary. Bloggers can say whatever they want and they do. I want someone to give me a credible source. Does anyone even get what that is?

Oh and yeah I was being sarcastic, I don't need you to tell me why I'm pissing them off. LOL at getting invited back. That was the best yet. I asked him if he was drunk because he has told us that he posts drunk before, and he sent me a pm saying he would stop making silly posts now that he was out of whiskey, or something like that.

I am sober, but this comment makes me wonder if you are. Please explain to me why both cannot be true.

Ok, gonna try, but I can't promise anything. Let's attempt this:
Wow had more western subs when less than 1% of guilds had killed illidan -- which would be what... at the release of sunwell? If not then you have to explain it to me because that is what it insinuates?

based on the public data points and comments (from blizzard and netease), early wrath was *very* likely the high point in western subs -- which would be what, early wrath right? Explain to me how that means anything besides early wrath?

Why not just tell me when YOU think wow had the most western subs?

Folks following the new, improved Finskee should assume any external link or source he uses contains erroneous data and he isn't telling you.

You're following me? Want a cookie?

[Deficineiron]

Nice. I just had to quote that for the record. I've never actually had someone argue that I wasn't even myself before.

Once again, set theory and the relationship of a A implies (B OR C) relationship elude you. This is not, however, evidence of mental illness in and of itself.

[mvaliz]

You do understand the difference between a news source and a blog right?

And this right here is an example of why you're upsetting people. You're ad-homineming again. What's the difference between a News-Source writer's opinion and another person's opinion? BOTH are still an opinion from an individual person. A news-source opinion post is just a Blog when you get right down to it. Honestly these days I trust the individual over the "news source" as one is not driven by money. Who cares if it comes from a "news source"... I think FOX news goes to prove not all News sites are trustworthy. :P

News Commentary IS blogging... just without the word "blog" attached to it. That's rather Classist of you to ignore/dismiss somebody's opinion just because they aren't attached to some big-name company.

If somebody writes up onto their blog "2+8 = 10" does that make their calculation wrong because it's not from a credited news commentary? Should YOUR posts be discredited because YOU don't work for any major news company?

The post was an EXPLANATION... That person said "here's another post explaining it". An article that somebody thought was informative. Who cares that it came from a Blog site? Who cares if the opinion came from a News Source or not? "news sources" are just blogs with a name attached to it when you get right down to it. That doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion.

[Deficineiron]

You're following me? Want a cookie?

Strangers offering sweets are to be avoided.

To clarify, at what point in time was the latest which you believe less than 1% of guilds had cleared BT? I think I can answer your question with this datum.

[finskee]

What's the difference between a News-Source writer's opinion and another person's opinion? BOTH are still an opinion from an individual person. A news-source opinion post is just a Blog when you get right down to it. Honestly these days I trust the individual over the "news source" as one is not driven by money. Who cares if it comes from a "news source"... I think FOX news goes to prove not all News sites are trustworthy. :P

News Commentary IS blogging... just without the word "blog" attached to it. That's rather Classist of you to ignore/dismiss somebody's opinion just because they aren't attached to some big-name company.

If somebody writes up onto their blog "2+8 = 10" does that make their calculation wrong because it's not from a credited news commentary? Should YOUR posts be discredited because YOU don't work for any major news company?

The post was an EXPLANATION... That person said "here's another post explaining it". An article that somebody thought was informative. Who cares that it came from a Blog site? Who cares if the opinion came from a News Source or not? "news sources" are just blogs with a name attached to it when you get right down to it. That doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion.

Ok, this is where you aren't going to get anything I'm saying because you can't wrap your head around it.
THis is from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable."

"Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process."

That has nothing to do with ad-hominem. That has to do with understanding what the word VERIFIABLE means. God I shouldn't have to explain this. Especially by someone telling me all I'm doing is ad-hominem. If you turned in your research paper and it had a BLOG as a source you'd get an F. Or to further that, if the New York Magazine printed something that wasn't true, they'd have to reprint it and could suffer legal action. A blogger is free from that, because it's all just opinion and that's all they ever claim it to be.

---------- Post added 2012-06-01 at 10:39 AM ----------

To clarify, at what point in time was the latest which you believe less than 1% of guilds had cleared BT? I think I can answer your question with this datum.

Nope... you keep doing this all the time. I'm tired of it. You tell me what you're trying to say. It's not my job to tell you what you are trying to say.

[mvaliz]

Ok, this is where you aren't going to get anything I'm saying because you can't wrap your head around it.
THis is from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable."

OK, this is where you aren't going to get anything I'm saying because you refuse to listen or are totally ignoring what I wrote.

I'm going to break this down as simply as possible so that even you... MIGHT... be able to understand.

Guys says "here's another theory why subs might not be going up"
You say "Bah! It's not a news article, it's just a Blog!"
Rest of us:... erm, so what? It's his opinion... why does it have to be "news" in order to state your opinion?

You're just Ad-homineming the article (and other people) instead of debating it's theories.

Even YOUR posts are basically mini-blogs. Does that mean your opinion shouldn't be counted?

The fact that you QUOTED WIKIPEDIA is proof enough! A web-site where ANYBODY can write ANYTHING they want to?

/sigh If you can't understand that Blog = opinion = valid use on Forum DISCUSSING OPINIONS than you're clearly just trolling or hate the idea of being "wrong".

[finskee]

Guys says "here's another theory why subs might not be going up"
You say "Bah! It's not a news article, it's just a Blog!"
Rest of us:... erm, so what? It's his opinion... why does it have to be "news" in order to state your opinion?

No no no that's BS. I spent real time and energy debunking the OP. He's just writing a blog. I didn't have to do that. But I did. Still you couldn't care less that the OPs blog is filled with blatantly false statements. Now some other guy comes along and throws up another blog filled with false statements (yes I did read it, it was a joke, all guesses with no hard fact) and now you want me to spend the next 20 pages debunking that post too? I don't have to do any of it. Certainly I've provided more real evidence than anyone here, and I've only said I wish to share my opinion so that you all can see that not everyone thinks the same. But after all this arguing, I admit I'm at a point where I want to see facts! That's not like some crazy request from a desperate man, that's just what anyone here owes me if they really want a discussion, and not to just tell me I'm wrong. Discussing opinions in blogs is making the wow community stupid. Let's talk facts. Got any?

[Goatfish]

Muru was one of the lamest bosses in the history of Wow. Just look at him. There's nothing about him that makes your skin crawl. He's a 2d boss. Phase one was adds. Phase two was a dps race.

On the other hand... Stonecore was actually a test of your skills. Sadly, not many passed. OZRUK! That was a good boss. Gotta love that guy.

I believe this was the first comment I was replying to. Specifically the part in bold.

That's what I said before to start. Muru was the same as any fight in wow except he was balanced too hard to start, and everyone knows it.

Oh goatfish. You are endlessly amusing to me. You get a boot to the head. BUT you're right, Muru is awesome because he broke up guilds, and because people got stuck on him for months. That makes a lot of sense. Sounds like fun I'm shocked my guild chose to not do that. I suppose we should all love Muru because he was like a needle in the eye? Fine. I love that 2 dimensional wind chime. He is awesome. Notice now how I'm flag-waving for Blizzard... by AGREEING with you? That's right. It's very confusing I know. I love how Blizzard tuned Muru! Great job guys! I also love how they tuned heroic sinestra and heroic rag in CAT, like loot pinatas! You just show up and they die! Keep up the good work BLIZZA!

Anyhow, I'm not sure how you got that Ozruk made me piss my pants. Some people in this thread said heroic stonecore was too hard, and I was backing Ozruk up, because I liked that fight. I don't think I died on him once though while I was tanking. Not that I can remember. I also thought heroic Stonecore was a fun dungeon, but I seriously doubt it broke up any guilds. It was only a dungeon. If you still fail to see why I say Muru sucked and Ozruk was fun, you should go solo them both, and then get back to me.

Aside from the fact that you are doing nothing but trying to twist arguments and run a long-term chewbacca defense. I think you answered yourself here. A boss who wasn't scary in the slightest because any decent tank never wiped to it (by your own words) should definitely, logically, 'make your skin crawl' or excite people more than a boss that takes 'no skill to kill just because it was overtuned' and stayed as one of the hardest fights in the history of WoW. There was nothing about fun in there, as fun is subjective. Personally I enjoy a fight like M'uru better because the entire group gets to do more than just tunnel a boss while the tank worries about just strafing every once in a while and spams threat.

But you are right, I can't stop you from being an overly sarcastic, illogical flag waver. I can only hope that I can stumble upon enough of your more abusive posts and a moderator who cares more for the rules rather than the fact you are pro-blizzard reviews those reports.