You are continually seeing what you want to see and nothing more, I asked you to prove that ONLY 2.4 million people left during that period - ONLY.
You are choosing to take only the quarterly losses without balancing them with the quarterly gains over that 2 year period. Try this with your tax return.
I guarantee you that more than 2.4 million people left over that 2 years but in each quarterly period there were either new or returning players that resulted in the total number of losses or gains for that quarter, the nett result is the important factor here whether you are looking at a quarterly period or a yearly period.
I get that the results for the last 12 months did not fit your agenda and you went back another year to the highest peak wow experienced by some margin to somehow support your argument that wow is bleeding subs, using this logic it is fair to say that wow has recovered some from the dive that happened a year ago and the losses are slowing.
Wow has sold over 30 million copies, with 9.6 million current active subs, this means more than 20 million losses have occurred at some point, show me those numbers from the quarterly reports (loss numbers that is - not sales numbers).
No one except blizzard can definitively say this many players quit in a certain time period, because it is offset by returning or new players.
I plead with you to start looking at things objectively instead of twisting the numbers to suit your own agenda.
At the end of 2009 when WoW had 11.5M, Pardo said "I don't know what the exact number is off-hand, but the total number of subscribers we've had is easily more than double - maybe closer to triple - the current subscriber base."
That's about 23-34.5M, 3 years ago. Rough extrapolation would mean close to 50M have played WoW at some point.
I put fourth fact. You put Fourth what you think happened. Any proff of your claims? thanks
---------- Post added 2013-02-09 at 01:56 PM ----------
Denying wow did not start bleeding subs till cata and that trend did not stop with mop than trying to say wow only lost 400k subs is flat out bullshit.
Last edited by But I Hate You All; 2013-02-09 at 10:01 PM.
This was in 2009, when wow had 11.5 currently active subs. A direct quote from Rob Pardo as linked previously.Another thought I have is that you have to also remember that the subscriber base of WoW today is not just the one we had when we launched. There's a whole bunch of people who tuned out of WoW two years ago or four years ago, but who really enjoyed it, and when another MMO comes out that tickles their fancy, they'll jump into it. I don't know what the exact number is off-hand, but the total number of subscribers we've had is easily more than double - maybe closer to triple - the current subscriber base.
Wow lost 400k subs from Q3 2012 to Q4 2012, that is fact.
10.2 mill subs at end of Q4 2011.
Q1 2012 subs remained static.
Q2 2012 1.1 mill subs lost (9.1 mill active)
Q3 2012 900k gained (10 mill active)
Q4 2012 400k lost (9.6 mill active)
A nett loss of subs for 2012 of 600k - these are the facts.
At this point in time, I think the only sensible way to think about subscriptions is to treat them a bit like a stock and look at them both long-term and in, for lack of a better example, something like a trading range. So WoW at this point in time is running somewhere between X and Y million subscribers for such and such a time period. Your range would change based upon where you set the time period. Movement within that range might signal something but probably not. Movement outside of that range would certainly require a closer look if you had any analysis tools and data that would be meaningful.
Really, trying to parse out individual events is the same as trying to put single-day stock ups and downs into a longer range context. Yes, Blizzard stock went up by 11% the other day but at the end of the month it's still likely to be trading between 11 and 14 like it has for the last 4 years. So shifts like that are essentially meaningless.
When people say that 400K loss isn't a big deal it's probably in that framework that they're thinking about it. And that has some validity. If patches and expansions do something to the numbers (as they clearly do) then all of this arguing over short-term stuff is pretty much BS unless the variability falls outside an established range. It's obvious that people return for an expansion and to a lesser degree for a patch but the ups and downs don't matter nearly as much as the overall range over say 18-24 months and whether or not the shifts are inside or outside that range.
Just a thought.
"...money's most powerful ability is to allow bad people to continue doing bad things at the expense of those who don't have it."
I do not find www.warcry.com a credible source. I went by what blizzard reported
---------- Post added 2013-02-09 at 02:23 PM ----------
Back to Cherry picking?
Q4 2010 at 12 million players world wide reported by blizzard
Q1 2013 - Blizzard reported 9.6 Million subscribers
2.4 million lost
"...money's most powerful ability is to allow bad people to continue doing bad things at the expense of those who don't have it."
8x1,5=12 Wrath had 50% higher player base than TBC.
12X0.5=6 TBC had 50% fewer players than Wrath.
Hmmmmmm
Actually, TBC had 11m+ at the end of it and Wrath only briefly surpassed TBC. I'm also pretty sure that WoW was never more active on a day to day basis than it was during TBC. It was the way it felt at least.
Do we really have to repeat all this every three months? Has anyone accomplished anything in this thread?
Weirdly enough I have. My post up the thread a bit about viewing subscription numbers in an analog of a stock trading range is a new idea for me and something that I want to give some thought to. And perhaps someone else will see it that had never had that idea before and will think about it as well. I'm not saying that I'm the very first to ever have the idea; I'm sure I'm not. But it's a different perspective than what a lot of the thread has been about and challenging people to drop their agendas and consider the information we have in a different way is something I like.
For the rest, I don't know. But it's something to talk about.
-------------------------------------
I will gently remind you that this is a bit off-topic. Please either continue to read, or better, contribute to what is on-topic. Thanks.
Last edited by MoanaLisa; 2013-02-09 at 11:05 PM.
"...money's most powerful ability is to allow bad people to continue doing bad things at the expense of those who don't have it."